Instigator / Pro
5
1492
rating
333
debates
40.69%
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
Tags
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 .
Round 1
Pro
#1
So sex as we observe it, its function, the structure of the sexual reproductive organs and the result of its function, its concluded that the purpose of it all will be allowed or denied.
Key words "sexual reproductive" , hints, points to the focus in sexuality. In this sexuality, the body will accept reproduction, fertilization, conception from the act of using these sexual organs or not accept or reject these things in use of these sexual organs.
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 or "procreate" as some prefer to perhaps of some perceived beauty of that word.
This is likened to the body rejecting the use of an organ's function after transplant. For whatever reason, the body doesn't allow a specific function .
It's the same occurrence with things that are consumed that the stomach/esophagus ejects back up from which it entered. For whatever reason, the body doesn't allow a use of that consumption. Something doesn't fit, so therefore, the function is disabled.
The function of the organ is disabled, the absorbtion of nourishment is disabled, the biological reproduction is disabled.
All parallels to no*body* accepting .
We definitely reject pregnancy via latex material.
Con
#2
Resolution: Nobody is accepting of homosexuality.
Key Terms:
Nobody - "No person; no one."
Accepting - "Believe or come to recognize (an opinion, explanation, etc.) as valid or correct"
Homosexuality - "The quality or characteristic of being sexually attracted solely to people of one's own sex."
Brief Opening Statment:
Thank you, Mall for the debate, and I'll get straight into it. The fundamental problems with Malls debate: Your resolution doesn't mean what you think it does. "No body" and "Nobody" means completely different things. I can completely disregard your description as nonsensical if I wanted to, there is no rule within the CoC that I must follow that description. Two, even if Mall was correct in what the resolution meant they would still be wrong. Let's get into it.
Bodily Acceptance?
The first key thing the voter should observe viewing Con's argument is their fast and loose definition of the word, "Acceptance." above you saw a definition as I have provided, and it definitely doesn't fit, that's because that definition fits with the actual resolution and not Mall's arguments. However, let's throw Mall a bone and suppose a better definition for his argument, "of a thing) be designed to allow (something) to be inserted or applied"
Now if I were to take this entire thing the most literal, I could object and say that sex or sexuality hasn't been demonstrated to have been designed, but instead, I will just presume evolution was the "designer" here and disregard the implications here. My point is - how many hoops I have to go to see their argument as even applicable.
Therefore we should analyze exactly what he's saying:
P1: Homosexuals can not reproduce using sexual intercourse
P2: The body is accepting of a sexuality if and only if that sexuality results in possible offspring
Con: Therefore the body does not accept homosexuality
This seems like a misrepresentation, but I promise you, dear voter, that is what Mall is saying, or at least what they are alluding to. Note, this is me creating a steel man, as Mall hasn't even argued a point yet, just tried to point out some things that wouldn't apply to their point. You see I am giving extra liberties to Mall here, in order to be fair.
Has Mall not taken into consideration that reproduction isn't the only purpose of sex? Especially in humans, not to mention, the body is more than just your reproduction system. Let's break this into two points, each alone would be enough to rebuke Mall's response in its entirety, but I believe in order to completely squash the notion, both should be convincing and logical.
1: Mall is assuming that the only purpose of human sexuality is reproduction
2: Mall only asserting a part of the body's acceptance, and not balance acceptance.
1.
Humans are social creatures [1] [2] [3], this is widely accepted even among non-academic circles, but it has implications that are often not thought about. Especially in how certain functions or acts are necessary for more than what may seem obvious. This is the case in terms of sex. Sexual relationships are a very large determiner of someone's mental health [4], and the view the individual has, the amount, and the innate sexuality of a person are all fundamental aspects of that mental health.
Therefore, sex, or the lack of it, is a key role in the mental health of humans, thereby, if someone is homosexual - then they should accept that homosexuality, this is according to the body, as even if the mind weren't the same thing (they are the same thing [5]) they affect of mental health have acute, fundamental effects on the rest of the body. [6] [7] [8]
2.
As the first part of this rebuttal said and something that Mall has not proven or demonstrated is that the body does not accept homosexuality because it does not result in reproduction. Let's talk about this for a second - is sexual intercourse necessary for reproduction? The answer may seem intuitive yes, but once you think about it for a second the answer is obviously no. 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 requires absolutely no sexual intercourse, therefore sexual intercourse isn't even a valid measurement of the body's acceptance. Second of all, several, several documented cases of animals behaving homosexually in the wild are easily demonstratable. [9] [10] [11] There are all sorts of biological benefits of behaving homosexual and the body does accept that. [12]
Yes, people do in fact accept homosexuality
Now I have given Mall the benefit of the doubt, let's examine what the resolution actually says. "Nobody accepts homosexuality" This would mean that no person or individual on the earth accepts the act of homosexuality. I am gay, and I practice that. therefore I accept homosexuality.
Now, this might not convince you, perhaps I'm lying to achieve the victory that is so far way, never fear for I have a more comprehensive source.
As Pew Center says [13]:
"But even with these sharp divides, views are changing in many of the countries that have been surveyed since 2002, when Pew Research Center first began asking this question. In many nations, there has been an increasing acceptance of homosexuality, including in the United States, where 72% say it should be accepted, compared with just 49% as recently as 2007."
As NORC.org says [14]:
"The GSS, which has been conducted biennially for 40 years, showed a marked increase in support of many civil liberties for gays and lesbians. Support for a gay person's right to speak before a public audience increased from 62 percent in 1972 to 86 percent in 2010; support for allowing gays and lesbians to teach at colleges or universities rose from 48 percent in 1973 to 84 percent in 2010; and approval for having a library keep a book that favors homosexuality rose from 54 percent in 1973 to 78 percent in 2010."
As Gallup polls says [15]:
Graphs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 all depict at least a one in percentage for acceptance, though this percentage is higher than one in all instances.
In other words, the preponderance of evidence points to the fact that, yes, people do accept homosexuality
Sources
Key words - https://www.lexico.com/
Back to Pro
Round 2
Pro
#3
Let's get your terms straight because this was pointed out in the beginning.
"Nobody - "No person; no one." "
Person, as in body, the physical anatomical body. I have no clothes on my person or body for example.
From the description :
"according to their anatomical setup and design, namely according to their body."
Thereafter I make an emphasis using the word "body".
"Accepting - "Believe or come to recognize (an opinion, explanation, etc.) as valid or correct""
Accepting involves no rejecting.
I made an illustration about the "body" rejecting a transplant. This is a case of the body not accepting something.
From the description :
"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."
"Homosexuality - "The quality or characteristic of being sexually attracted solely to people of one's own sex." "
From the description:
"No person accepts homosexuality. That's absolutely no person as in their body accepts homosexual behavior."
We're also dealing with behavior which is the extension of that attraction. You act upon what is sexually attractive to do.
"The first key thing the voter should observe viewing Con's argument is their fast and loose definition of the word, "Acceptance." above you saw a definition as I have provided, and it definitely doesn't fit, that's because that definition fits with the actual resolution and not Mall's arguments. However, let's throw Mall a bone and suppose a better definition for his argument, "of a thing) be designed to allow (something) to be inserted or applied" "
When something is accepted , it can't be rejected.
That's all that is meant to be communicated so by whatever way you define it, it absolutely can't have rejection.
Are we in agreement?
To try and clean this up with more exact words let's start with :
"Homosexuals can not reproduce using sexual intercourse"
I don't know what's meant by "sexual intercourse".
The sexual reproductive organs reject homosexuality or homosexual behavior . This means the organs fail to produce what's in their nature mixing with the wrong environment (homosexuality) . They don't reject an alternate environment as that alternative is able to abide with the success(production) according to the organ's nature.
So heterosexuality when all is correct, thrives with this system as homosexuality does not.
"P2: The body is accepting of a sexuality if and only if that sexuality results in possible offspring"
The question is which form of "sexuality"?
Once you start with a broad term in that way, you'll be looking for loopholes. Most likely those loops would be illusions and the reality would be the nature of things unchanged. But we could avoid all the confusion and derailing by tightening up the itinerary here
So by this last statement here would logically follow. "Con: Therefore the body does not accept homosexuality" "
"Has Mall not taken into consideration that reproduction isn't the only purpose of sex? "
The question is , for who's or what purpose?
As you noticed or should have from the description, I'm speaking based from the body or anatomical figure's p.o.v. but you're switching this to another direction it seems.
See if we can silence all else, just let the body itself communicate what it is, what it does. Through observation, it communicates with its shapes, structure, design, etc. The word design has to do with form. It's not necessary to think about the designer or a justification for one. We're just simply looking "at a design". We observe how it works, its function and we can gather information from there.
"Especially in humans, not to mention, the body is more than just your reproduction system."
The body is not a reproduction system. It's an organism that has for one of its organs, a sexual reproductive organ. Distinguishment is very important.
"1: Mall is assuming that the only purpose of human sexuality is reproduction"
I never made that statement. I never stated what the purpose of sex is. I stated specific terms such as the sexual reproductive organs.
"2: Mall only asserting a part of the body's acceptance, and not balance acceptance. "
I can't figure what you're trying to say here. You have to prove at least some if not everybody or every*body" accepts or can accept homosexuality. Basically the opposite of what I laid out.
", and the view the individual has, the amount, and the innate sexuality of a person are all fundamental aspects of that mental health.
Therefore, sex, or the lack of it, is a key role in the mental health of humans, thereby, if someone is homosexual - then they should accept that homosexuality, this is according to the body, as even if the mind weren't the same thing (they are the same thing [5]) they affect of mental health have acute, fundamental effects on the rest of the body. [6] [7] [8] "
Please help clear up the confusion here.
Why isn't the sexual reproductive organ that is also attached to the body consistent and lined up with everything else?
I have a mind directing my attention to the *same sex* to utilize my *sexual reproductive organ on* which *no reproduction will work*.
I would ask myself as to why I'm so interested in doing that. Think about all the physiological processes. Absolutely all that comes with it, what it entails.
"is sexual intercourse necessary for reproduction? The answer may seem intuitive yes, but once you think about it for a second the answer is obviously no. 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. "
You agree with me. You've mentioned substance that comes from a sexual reproductive organ. I never said "sexual intercourse" once but just this any other quote from you.
All I've ever expressed were the terms "sexual reproductive organs" . What you say is necessary mirrors or reflects heterosexuality because the substances mentioned don't come from the same sexual reproductive organ.
"This requires absolutely no sexual intercourse, therefore sexual intercourse isn't even a valid measurement of the body's acceptance. "
Right , be careful not to strawman. You shouldn't add words I never mentioned.
"Second of all, several, several documented cases of animals behaving homosexually in the wild are easily demonstratable. [9] [10] [11] There are all sorts of biological benefits of behaving homosexual and the body does accept that. [12]"
Don't confuse consent or compliance of a behavior with a function of or within the body that contradicts it.
I can agree to consume something all day that the body continues to reject by way of not absorbing nourishment. The function is in the nourishment, not my agreement so not in all aspects is it accepted.
"Yes, people do in fact accept homosexuality
Now I have given Mall the benefit of the doubt, let's examine what the resolution actually says. "Nobody accepts homosexuality" This would mean that no person or individual on the earth accepts the act of homosexuality. I am gay, and I practice that. therefore I accept homosexuality. "
Hopefully by now you can see the distinction made with use of the term "body". Going by the description of this debate, thereafter , there is an acceptance/rejection bodily speaking.
"In other words, the preponderance of evidence points to the fact that, yes, people do accept homosexuality"
People as in what? According to their minds, not necessarily their bodies. You agree when you say what's necessary for sexual reproduction. Its those ingredients from which they come from the sexual organs that are not the same. So it's not homosexuality. So what is necessary, it's not that . That has to be rejected and out of the way . That's point 1 you agree with. Those sexual organs don't cease being what they are to produce those ingredients so no other nature is accepted but, point two you agree with.
Bottom line, they are what they are.
But a person in their conscious thought or process can ignore that and accept homosexuality on their terms. The body doesn't think, it just functions. Its terms can be pushed aside. This happens with many things, not just sex but with drugs, foods, intoxicities . One of the many reasons we're in poor health is a neglect to the body but full attention to what our minds desire, like and care to indulge in.
So one thing in this debate so far that's problematic with you is a hastiness with words or an arbitrary usage of words.
You really have to stick to what was specifically said or else there'll be a mix up and confusion of points .
Con
#4
Resolution: Nobody is accepting of homosexuality
Key Terms
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.
So for all of the sourceless, claims they make of Key Terms, and as for their holding up of their description, please refer to my opening statement in round 1. If the terms are disputable, I will dispute them, but regardless I handled the debate with and without this truth. I first argued from my perspective using their key terms and not using them, that way it was clear that no matter the vocabulary being used here, Mall was wrong.
Bodily Acceptance
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. 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.
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.
Yes, people do in fact accept homosexuality: Extend, failure of Pro to properly interpret the resolution using justifiable reasoning.
Rebuttals
When something is accepted , it can't be rejected
Incorrect, something can be partially accepted or partially rejected.
The sexual reproductive organs reject homosexuality or homosexual behavior . This means the organs fail to produce what's in their nature mixing with the wrong environment (homosexuality) . They don't reject an alternate environment as that alternative is able to abide with the success(production) according to the organ's nature.
Sexual organs don't have nature, they have functions. 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 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, [1] [2] [3]. 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.
Once you start with a broad term in that way, you'll be looking for loopholes. Most likely those loops would be illusions and the reality would be the nature of things unchanged. But we could avoid all the confusion and derailing by tightening up the itinerary here
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? How is it vague whenever you used "Nobody" in your resolution? 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.
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.
As you noticed or should have from the description, I'm speaking based from the body or anatomical figure's p.o.v. but you're switching this to another direction it seems.See if we can silence all else, just let the body itself communicate what it is, what it does. Through observation, it communicates with its shapes, structure, design, etc. The word design has to do with form. It's not necessary to think about the designer or a justification for one. We're just simply looking "at a design". We observe how it works, its function and we can gather information from there.
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, or at all, and I have clarified and added more reasoning onto my evidence from the first round, so take this in mind voters, Pro has not actually made an argument here, they are just trying to poke holes at mine, and unsuccessfully. Anatomically does refer to the mind or is the brain, not a bodily structure?
The body is not a reproduction system. It's an organism that has for one of its organs, a sexual reproductive organ. Distinguishment is very important.
Precisely my point! Your entire argument is based on the supposed rejection of one organ, so even if you were correct in that regard, there are other organs you are incorrect about the rejection for and haven't objected to! Not to mention, you weren't correct about that first one either.
I never made that statement. I never stated what the purpose of sex is. I stated specific terms such as the sexual reproductive organs.
The same thing applies, as I have pointed out, this is semantic and doesn't actually counteract my point.
I can't figure what you're trying to say here. You have to prove at least some if not everybody or every*body" accepts or can accept homosexuality. Basically the opposite of what I laid out.
I did prove that, that part, in fact, most, of the body accepts homosexuality and that people do accept homosexuality, in both regards you are wrong.
I would ask myself as to why I'm so interested in doing that. Think about all the physiological processes. Absolutely all that comes with it, what it entails.
This is absolutely incorrect, I have already established why this is more than a physiological process and is at least a little chemical, mental, with my point on pleasure.
You agree with me
I do not, I was pointing out that homosexuality and heterosexuality have nothing to do with the acceptance you're talking about.
Right , be careful not to strawman. You shouldn't add words I never mentioned
Incorrect, your usage of words are out of a colloquial sense, not to mention they change as you need them to fit your narrative, so I'll do you a favor and use dictionary defined ones.
Don't confuse consent or compliance of a behavior with a function of or within the body that contradicts it.
Wrong, the sources I provided explicitly labeled several uses of homosexuality, functions, such as overpopulation control, mating whenever there are a lack of heterosexual partners, bonding in social species, etc, etc.. Check out my first round if you are having a hard time remembering details.
People as in what? According to their minds, not necessarily their bodies. You agree when you say what's necessary for sexual reproduction. Its those ingredients from which they come from the sexual organs that are not the same. So it's not homosexuality. So what is necessary, it's not that . That has to be rejected and out of the way . That's point 1 you agree with. Those sexual organs don't cease being what they are to produce those ingredients so no other nature is accepted but, point two you agree with.Bottom line, they are what they are.
As I pointed out in round 1 and sources, the mind is a part of the body, I will challenge you to debunk that in round 3. Regardless, this is also completely ignoring my actual argument, as it applies to the literal definition of Nobody and acceptance, not the vague bunk you had, to be clear, I detest the dishonest tactic of defining nobody as Mall did. Mall doesn't prove anything with this point. Which is their objective, nothing he has said is sourced nor is it logically valid.
But a person in their conscious thought or process can ignore that and accept homosexuality on their terms. The body doesn't think, it just functions. Its terms can be pushed aside. This happens with many things, not just sex but with drugs, foods, intoxicities . One of the many reasons we're in poor health is a neglect to the body but full attention to what our minds desire, like and care to indulge in.
You haven't proven this, prove it, also the mind and body accept homosexuality, as I have proven this and the entire last round, prove me wrong.
Sources:
Key Terms: https://www.lexico.com/
Back to Pro
Round 3
Pro
#5
(additional responses to the earlier points will be in the comment board)
(The addressing of all points in thorough manner will have to broken into brackets)
"Precisely my point! Your entire argument is based on the supposed rejection of one organ, so even if you were correct in that regard, there are other organs you are incorrect about the rejection for and haven't objected to! Not to mention, you weren't correct about that first one either."
You already say I am correct when you mentioned what's necessary for pregnancy. I don't think you realize when you stated that, you confirmed that part of the body accepts no other nature than.
Just because you use the term "body", it doesn't mean all of the organs as a whole space and vessel. I say I have cancer in my body . I'm broadly telling you where it's located. The presence of cancer just concerns my body but its exact area is anywhere within depending on the spread. I say I'm bleeding. That means I'm bleeding at least somewhere on my person. See any part of the body is attached to the body. It's a living system. Each part has its own job in a connected system.
So getting super finicky here is a theme of yours. The organs of the body that reject something out of the body is the body working to refuse it as it is of the body.
"The same thing applies, as I have pointed out, this is semantic and doesn't actually counteract my point."
I never made an argument about sex so your so called argument for this is void.
"I did prove that, that part, in fact, most, of the body accepts homosexuality and that people do accept homosexuality, in both regards you are wrong. "
Another pseudo argument as mine was concerning the sexual reproductive organs. Maybe you just don't agree or accept that the word "person" or "persons/people" are equivocal. Regardless, I don't believe you're obtuse and should be well aware by now that the debate topic sets the distinguishment between the mind and body.
"This is absolutely incorrect, I have already established why this is more than a physiological process and is at least a little chemical, mental, with my point on pleasure. "
Looks like you conveniently skip this question. Instead just concede because I'll only ask it again to shine light on a valid question.
Why isn't the sexual reproductive organ that is also attached to the body consistent and lined up with everything else?
I have a mind directing my attention to the *same sex* to utilize my *sexual reproductive organ on* which *no reproduction will work*.
It's a sexual reproductive organ . I understand it is not consistent with the role of homosexuality but we can't be confused here.
"You agree with me
I do not, I was pointing out that homosexuality and heterosexuality have nothing to do with the acceptance you're talking about."
Here's what you said :
"is sexual intercourse necessary for reproduction? The answer may seem intuitive yes, but once you think about it for a second the answer is obviously no. 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. "
Here you are indicating the substances that are extracted from their sources connected to the human person or body. No where in there did you agree that the substances are the same. The nature of the same cannot be accepted.
That's all I'm saying. You don't have to try to make more of a debate than that for the sake of being right about extraneous things. We can just agree and call it right here.
"Incorrect, your usage of words are out of a colloquial sense, not to mention they change as you need them to fit your narrative, so I'll do you a favor and use dictionary defined ones."
Prove where I used the terms sexual intercourse. You have proved of yourself adding this language in attempt to manipulate an argument.
"Wrong, the sources I provided explicitly labeled several uses of homosexuality, functions, such as overpopulation control, mating whenever there are a lack of heterosexual partners, bonding in social species, etc, etc.. Check out my first round if you are having a hard time remembering details. "
Not the debate. You've provided absolutely no explanation of tying homosexuality with sexual reproductive organs. These organs and roles exist. Quit dancing around it and face it. Just come forth and say that science hasn't provided an answer for us yet so you'll feel better here. You're on the hot seat with this question getting burned up.
"As I pointed out in round 1 and sources, the mind is a part of the body, I will challenge you to debunk that in round 3. "
Why? Did I say the mind and body are not connected? You're an excellent dancer.
My question of why the role of the sexual reproductive organs connected to the body don't sync up with the mind connected to the same body is still unanswered. A mind that controls my actions and behaviors to do with an organ that impregnates a being that can't be impregnated, something is not adding up.
"literal definition of Nobody and acceptance, not the vague bunk you had, to be clear, I detest the dishonest tactic of defining nobody as Mall did. "
So we're back on this again. Regardless of what you like or think, nobody or no person is the same as saying no body. You read or should have read through the first round. I go into physical parts of the body. No where in my argument am I discussing people choose (mind), people decide (mind), people think (mind), people judge (mind) and declare there position to be against or for something. I specifically get into anatomical parts. Now I understand that you misunderstood this whole thing moving too fast with words and assumptions, but now we're just communicating around each other saying similar things flipping different words.
I said from the very beginning that when I say person , I'm saying as in the body.
So this point is exhausted. It's cooked, it's done.
"Mall doesn't prove anything with this point. Which is their objective, nothing he has said is sourced nor is it logically valid. "
The source is your eyes which apparently weren't used too much over the description so I had to reiterate in pieces through out this thing. The proof is from observation and you already made the valid point that has been in agreement with me and haven't realized it.
The valid point made is secured from observation. Our bodies are the source of information. That's why scientists , biologists, geneticists and doctors study, make reports and hypothesises based on human anatomy. They observe and learn based on its behavior.
Our bodies communicate but do you want to listen?
Nothing else is necessary. You already made the point that's in agreement to make the topic statement true , given the context in case you forgot that part.
Context : " But a person in their conscious thought or process can ignore that and accept homosexuality on their terms. The body doesn't think, it just functions. Its terms can be pushed aside. This happens with many things, not just sex but with drugs, foods, intoxicities . One of the many reasons we're in poor health is a neglect to the body but full attention to what our minds desire, like and care to indulge in.
"You haven't proven this, prove it,"
It has been proven to you as you've witnessed or learned this throughout life. Either you're inexperienced or disingenuous.
First off , I don't have to prove what the first sentence is saying. That's your position. People do accept consciously homosexuality for what it is.
The body aside from the head has no thinking capacity. Now if you want proof because you think I'm lying or ignorant that the brain exists no where but in the head, I could insult your intelligence. But I think you know that the brain is what is responsible for mental , congitive faculties and judgment that does not take place in all of the body.
Let's look at food. Terms of the body to sustain is appropriate nourishment. Those terms can be pushed aside with our conscious choice of consuming whatever we like, whatever we wish to indulge in regardless of it being improper for the body's health. Those are different terms my friend. Often times if you are observing, listening to your body, it rejects what's unacceptable by vomiting . Same applies to drugs and liquor.
"also the mind and body accept homosexuality, as I have proven this and the entire last round, prove me wrong. "
Does that include the sexual reproductive organs? By you not being specific here again, not realizing something you already said , you can call yourself wrong for taking on this challenge.
So the bottom line to all this I'll take from what you stated.
"is sexual intercourse necessary for reproduction? The answer may seem intuitive yes, but once you think about it for a second the answer is obviously no. 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. "
Here you are indicating the substances that are extracted from their sources connected to the human person or body. No where in there did you agree that the substances are the same. The nature of the same cannot be accepted.
It may be rough to drop a conventionalized view of everything but it's the first step to thinking for yourself.
Round 4
Pro
#7
So basically in summary when we look at all people rejecting homosexuality, think about things past face value and past the conventional sense.
Many of you see a sentence and automatically think it's just erroneous on its face like a challenge is going to be that easy to debunk.
But the context is important because communication is coming through the context. We have to be able to communicate and understand one another.
Not rejecting what the other says and what they mean just because it isn't liked, expected, conventional or well received.
So nobody or no person as in their body accepts homosexuality. The bodily parts are the sexual reproductive organs. The organs that cause sexual reproductive activity. That's all we need to know. That is very specific.
The nature of the sexual reproductive organs as you mentioned produces substances needed for pregnancy. The substance , essence or sum and substance therein all of which would be synonymous with the word "nature". Upon doing a google engine search, you'll see the definition. The role of the organ identifies or characterizes what the organ does to distinguish from anything else which is to produce genetic reproductive material. This is the very nature of the thing which you may be looking at that word very differently. Another term with multiple meanings. The organ's function is innate, inborn, inbuilt, intrinsic, inherit, all within and nothing from the outside that has to do with its function.
What's the nature of homosexuality?
When it comes to its behavior, we understand it's the attraction of using your sexual reproductive organs with the same sex as you would use them with a different sex. The function of those organs occur in one environment just the same as the other. The function doesn't change as it still behaves and goes to produce its substance or nature between same sexes as it would between different sexes. The nature of the function doesn't change. The substance(s) doesn't or don't change to produce genetic reproduction. It takes on no other nature that's not meant to result in sexual reproduction like homosexuality. Same sex attraction and that sexuality is not meant to result in sexual reproduction. It isn't the nature of that .
****In elementary terms, the nature of one element links to a different one . So linking one element with the same is against the nature of the one or both elements. Basically what the challenger has said to be necessary.******
Either way you want to reference it, we can just look at sexes as the sexual reproductive organs alone. Everything applies the same as these organs are attached to individual bodies of a sex or gender.
I guess a titanic size summary but this thing has much detail to it. But no sinking to this ship here. It's obvious through observation and it's made plain and specific here what the organs do as specific terms were used to describe and or identify (the nature) of what they do.
The actual summary :
****In elementary terms, the nature of one element links to a different one . So linking one element with the same is against the nature of the one or both elements. Basically what the challenger has said to be necessary.******
Again, this debate was pointing out, making a distinction between the function in the body versus the function of our minds. We think , choose and accept what we will on a conscious level. Just like with alcohol consumption or gluttony. We want all we want but the body will step in and say " no" even though we crave just one more beer or cupcake.
That just the way it is . Don't take it up with me . You can argue with your body. That's the source of information that may have a rebuttal or two on your argument.
Con
#8
Rebuttals:
You already say I am correct when you mentioned what's necessary for pregnancy. I don't think you realize when you stated that, you confirmed that part of the body accepts no other nature than.Just because you use the term "body", it doesn't mean all of the organs as a whole space and vessel. I say I have cancer in my body . I'm broadly telling you where it's located. The presence of cancer just concerns my body but its exact area is anywhere within depending on the spread. I say I'm bleeding. That means I'm bleeding at least somewhere on my person. See any part of the body is attached to the body. It's a living system. Each part has its own job in a connected system.
Except... not only have I demonstrated that the sexual reproductive organs don't reject homosexuality, but they actually accept it in a lot of regards, and.. the resolution clearly says, "accepts" not, "the sexual organ accepts" so even if I hadn't, my point on the brain still applies. Secondly, to your analogy with homosexuality and cancer, its a false equivalence.
A sexuality is not equivalent with a bodily illness, especially not one that is usually focused on a specific organ, homosexuality is the preference of someone's gender in regard to romance and sexuality (though that's colloquially so for the sake of the debate treat the term as if we're speaking on sexual matters to give Mall the benefit of the doubt), this isn't just determined in the sexual organ but the brain. [1] [2]
I never made an argument about sex so your so called argument for this is void.
Again, my general point was talking about the functions of sexual organs, and I happened to use the word sex, your objection here is semantic.
Anther pseudo argument as mine was concerning the sexual reproductive organs. Maybe you just don't agree or accept that the word "person" or "persons/people" are equivocal. Regardless, I don't believe you're obtuse and should be well aware by now that the debate topic sets the distinguishment between the mind and body.
No, it doesn't, you have not proven that your mind and body are different, the mind is the product of the brain, and thus is completely fair in talking about organs, this is you not understanding the mind. I don't care if you topic sets distinguishment, prove that they are different. That's not me being obtuse, thats me asking for evidence of a proposition.
Why isn't the sexual reproductive organ that is also attached to the body consistent and lined up with everything else?
I have no idea what you mean? The sexual reproduction SYSTEM, it is not a single organ that deals with reproduction, so this question isn't even factually correct. Consistent with what? Their acceptance of homosexuality? They are, as I have already demonstrated with my points on pleasure.
I have a mind directing my attention to the *same sex* to utilize my *sexual reproductive organ on* which *no reproduction will work*.It's a sexual reproductive organ . I understand it is not consistent with the role of homosexuality but we can't be confused here.
You are legitmately confusing me with your objection: That is not the only organ to take into consideration of acceptance, so you're wrong there; reproduction has no contingent correlation with sexuality, as you can reproduce without any sex whatsoever, so another nonpoint; there are multiple organs that dictate reproduction not only one. So no, you have made no valid objections, you are literally just repeating your argument with the hope of acceptance.
Here you are indicating the substances that are extracted from their sources connected to the human person or body. No where in there did you agree that the substances are the same. The nature of the same cannot be accepted.That's all I'm saying. You don't have to try to make more of a debate than that for the sake of being right about extraneous things. We can just agree and call it right here.
There you betray how little you actually understand on the subject, I have to be exact about details because you are wrong, you made a flaw in reasoning and I am going to call it out regardless of your care on the matter. This entire, "You agree" is wrong, clearly I did not agree with your point, you came to a non-sequitur. The base fact that you need sperm and eggs to reproduce? Yes we agree, but again, that is irrelevant to the debate.
Prove where I used the terms sexual intercourse. You have proved of yourself adding this language in attempt to manipulate an argument.
That wasn't my point, my point was that your vocabulary is inconsistent, and that my words were defined by the dictionary, therefore my definitions of the terms are more apt, and so I interpret your words with dictionary definitions else I could just dismiss your argument as it means something entirely different from what your intentions are.
Not the debate. You've provided absolutely no explanation of tying homosexuality with sexual reproductive organs. These organs and roles exist. Quit dancing around it and face it. Just come forth and say that science hasn't provided an answer for us yet so you'll feel better here. You're on the hot seat with this question getting burned up.
This is arrogance at its finest, not only is reproduction and acceptance not contingent on one another (an organ can accept something without it being viable for reproduction) you are also conflating one organ as the sole propreiter of acceptance, which is also untrue, your entire argument is backed on unproven assumptions. Yes I have, they can provide these organs pleasure and this is clearly a goal based on my evidences, so no, this is you ignoring evidence in favor of ad hoc asserting your position
Why? Did I say the mind and body are not connected? You're an excellent dancer.My question of why the role of the sexual reproductive organs connected to the body don't sync up with the mind connected to the same body is still unanswered. A mind that controls my actions and behaviors to do with an organ that impregnates a being that can't be impregnated, something is not adding up.
No, you said they were different, which clearly implies I can't connect arguments from the "mind" to ones of the "body" though I clearly can. They do, as I have proved, impregnation isn't the sole sign of acceptance, this is you again being unreasonable and not proving a single thing,
So we're back on this again
This paragraph (not put in for character limit), is not a rebuke, its him making a synopsis of his arguments. Yes you went into anatomy, and I proved you wrong there (see round 1 and 2) and you miss-interpreted the resolution as is reasonable, they are not the same thing and this is dishonest on your part, that's how resolutions work.
The source is your eyes which apparently weren't used too much over the description so I had to reiterate in pieces through out this thing. The proof is from observation and you already made the valid point that has been in agreement with me and haven't realized it.The valid point made is secured from observation. Our bodies are the source of information. That's why scientists , biologists, geneticists and doctors study, make reports and hypothesises based on human anatomy. They observe and learn based on its behavior.Our bodies communicate but do you want to listen?
Except you assume that reproduction is the only source of acceptance, you assume that only the sexual reproduction system (Ill abbreviate to SRS for now on) I have proven the opposite, your claims are non-sequiturs, they do not logically follow the information, you are essentially jumping to conclusions. I have clearly demonstrated why your point of acceptance isn't what acceptance means, that acceptance applies to the "mind" and the brain just as much as the SRS, and that reproduction is not the only standard of acceptance, and Pro has not demonstrated it.
It has been proven to you as you've witnessed or learned this throughout life. Either you're inexperienced or disingenuous.
That does not matter, what matters is what is demonstrable either through logical necessity or demonstration.
First off , I don't have to prove what the first sentence is saying. That's your position. People do accept consciously homosexuality for what it is.
No, you have made several claims, none of those were what you just listed. Prove it.
The body aside from the head has no thinking capacity. Now if you want proof because you think I'm lying or ignorant that the brain exists no where but in the head, I could insult your intelligence. But I think you know that the brain is what is responsible for mental , congitive faculties and judgment that does not take place in all of the body.
Wrong, the brain also manages and send hormones all over the body, and is the focal point of the indocrine system, as well as the reproductive system, you have no idea the full function of the brain. [3] [4] The brain is responsible for a great deal of physical happenings.
Let's look at food. Terms of the body to sustain is appropriate nourishment. Those terms can be pushed aside with our conscious choice of consuming whatever we like, whatever we wish to indulge in regardless of it being improper for the body's health. Those are different terms my friend. Often times if you are observing, listening to your body, it rejects what's unacceptable by vomiting . Same applies to drugs and liquor.
Accept the body has no necessary negative reaction to homosexuality, the preference of the same sex sexually, that again doesn't relate. This is a false equivalence.
Does that include the sexual reproductive organs? By you not being specific here again, not realizing something you already said , you can call yourself wrong for taking on this challenge.
Yes, yes it does, but thats not the point, the point is that the body accepts homosexuality, and even if the SRS didn't most of the body does.
The conclusion is a repeat of Mall's arguments.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Another foregone conclusion...
Pro argues that homosexual bodies do not exist, and con swiftly proves that they do using such sources as the Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience. Under pro's assertions combined with con's arguments that humans are social creatures, homosexual bodies existing already takes care of if they accept it.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Argument: Pro offers no distinction between "person" and "body," and thus dies not distinguish "nobody" and "no body." Con successfully rebuts this point, with sourced evidence that the two latter terms, ion particular, have distinct differentiation. Pro has several arguments which, by grammar, make them difficult to determine exactly what Pro is saying. Example: "organs fail to produce what's in their nature mixing with the wrong environment" Con rebuts the nonsense of this statement as organs do not have a calculated nature to them to accept or reject any though processed in the brain. The brain calculates; sexual organs merely act by their coded function. Pro rejects his own argument by stating later: "The body doesn't think, it just functions." Points to Con
Sources: Pro offers absolutely no sourcing. Con offers multiple sources that support his arguments. Point to Con
S&G: Pro has several instances of poor sentence construction making a challenge of understanding his argument, such as exemplified above. Another example: Pro states: "It's the same occurrence with things that are consumed that the stomach/esophagus ejects back up from which it entered. For whatever reason, the body doesn't allow a use of that consumption. Something doesn't fit, so therefore, the function is disabled." Pro is speaking of two separate functions of the digestive system; to digest, and to vomit. They are separate functions, and latter is not engaged due to the failure of the former. The rejection may have nothing whatsoever to do with the immediate digestive function, but rather, at times, due to a sudden witness of revulsion, a pre-existing condition of a digestive malady, or by intent to cause vomiting. Point to Con
Conduct: Con forfeited R3. Not sufficient to lose the debate, but a loss of conduct point.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Obviously, pro had failed to refute con's sources showing acceptance of homosexuality. There's simply too much research and evidence in favor that Con displays.
Yes sir yes sir.
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 .
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!
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.
Huh, maybe, it definitely doesn't translate well.
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...
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.