Instigator / Con
2
1327
rating
62
debates
16.94%
won
Topic

Your proposal to have all people accept homosexuality/same sex marriage.

Status
Finished

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

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
0
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 5 points ahead, the winner is ...

blamonkey
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Pro
7
1670
rating
20
debates
92.5%
won
Description
~ 1,613 / 5,000

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

Your proposal to have all people to accept homosexuality/same sex marriage is what?

Basically you would come up with an argument that demonstrates that homosexual desire and behavior is correct just as heterosexuality desire and behavior.

No doubt all people accept or would have to accept heterosexuality or they deny their own existence for via heterosexuality they came. The denial would be impossible because they remain to exist known or unbeknownst to them. At least bodily speaking.

The great thing about truth , it stands separate, on its own.

So what could you say that would make homosexuality undeniable period?

For the whole world of people to accept homosexuality, what could you say in one sentence that gives us all no choice to accept it?

Something so undoubtedly so that everything else we believe and accept about sex or sexuality would confuse or contradict our position if we're not accepting to homosexuality.

If one sentence is too challenging, try within five sentences.

Are you game?

For ALL questions on words used here therein , clarity, etc., you can comment , have a civil discussion, let's do it.

Round 1
Con
So what could you say that would make homosexuality undeniable period?

For the whole world of people to accept homosexuality, what could you say in one sentence that gives us all no choice to accept it?

Something so undoubtedly so that everything else we believe and accept about sex or sexuality would confuse or contradict our position if we're not accepting to homosexuality.
Pro
Observation

As a brief side note, the resolution asks that I justify homosexuality/same-sex marriage. The rules ask me to justify homosexual behavior and desire. Since the latter is all-encompassing, I gravitate toward that.

Overview

The resolution asks me to present an ironclad defense of homosexual “acceptance.” What does “accept” mean? On its own, the word “accept” is so loaded, you could stuff it with sour cream and onions and sell it for $1.99at Wendy’s. Con also used the word “correct” to describe homosexual behavior, but he uses these words interchangeably. The debate isn’t about whether the behavior is correct, It’s about people’s acceptance. More on this later.
Merriam-Webster has many definitions, but there are 2 applicable to the resolution.

“…to give admittance or approval to”
“…to recognize as true” (1).

Con’s ruleset implies that I should use the latter. I know this because of his formulation “proving” heterosexuality’s universal acceptance:

“No doubt all people accept or would have to accept heterosexuality or they deny their own existence for via heterosexuality they came.”

Con’s formulation does not pertain to heterosexuality’s approval. In fact, many disapprove of heterosexuality. Anti-natalists contend that heterosexual child-bearers subject their offspring to harm merely by copulating. Benetar proposed the asymmetry, a classic argument for anti-natalism (2). He posits that life includes pleasure and pain, the former being good and the latter being bad. In non-life, there is no trade-off. The absence of pleasure (since non-life can’t experience pleasure) is not bad because there is nobody to feel dissatisfied, and the absence of pain is good. All evidence points toward a non-living advantage. Newborns are unable to capitalize on this non-living advantage. They are born without consent. Ergo, creating new life encroaches on the offspring’s free agency to choose not to live. As the great Kilgore Trout opined, “to live is a crock of sh*t.” While anti-natalists may recognize that life stems from the fusing of male and female gametes unique to heterosexual copulation, they assign a negative value to life. They don’t “accept” that heterosexuality is moral.

By process of elimination, I assert that the other definition, “to recognize as true,” is the correct interpretation for the purpose of debate.

C1: Homosexuality Exists

Over 4000 species exhibit “homosexual behavior and desire” (3). Humans exhibit this behavior too. In the US, 11% of adults report having “same-sex attraction” per the UCLA’s Williams Institute, and over 8% report having engaged in same-sex behavior (4).

To deny the existence of what is right in front of you is an ultimate denial of one’s senses, which is equivalent to the denial of the self. If we can’t trust what we sense, we have no idea what we are or where we reside. For all we know, we could be stuck in a virtual reality program.
Therefore, because homosexuality exists, it is accepted already. Even the most ardent homophobes in the world can agree they exist even if they don’t see eye to hate-filled eye. Per the definition of accept, I have fulfilled my burden. Vote Pro.

C2: Education K

Here’s another nugget from Con’s ruleset.

“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.”

In other words, Con values learning in debate. I agree, but the rules advanced by Pro reduce any educational value this debate could have had to nil. For one thing, the resolution is opaque, which meant I was required to spend a significant amount of space divining what Con had in mind when he posed it. Furthermore, the rules contradict the debatable resolution. As I note in my observation, the resolution concerns homosexuality/same-sex marriage, and his rules ask me to justify “homosexual behavior and desire.” These terms overlap, but they imply different burdens. Also, the rules ask me to justify “homosexual behavior and desire” as being “correct.” That’s nowhere near the debatable topic. Since Con never set all the cards on the table, he turned this debate into a semantical exercise at the onset by his convoluted rules. His entire ruleset and threadbare case are antithetical to his own educational values. If you truly value education, please vote Con. At the very least, I taught you about the anti-natalists and the asymmetry argument proposed by Benatar. I also taught you about the prevalence of same-sex behavior and desire in the US.

Con also ladles Pro with the onus in the debate while not serving himself anything. The rules don’t’ require him to do anything. An old adage is applicable here, to wit: 2 heads are better than one. An intellectually stimulating conversation is conducive to learning, which is why the Platonic dialogues on justice in the Republic are still remembered and quoted to this day. On the other hand, one person jabbering on while their partner is under no obligation to interject is not. Con’s first case, a mere few sentences restating the rules, demonstrates how lax his burden is.

A Pro ballot discourages other debaters from forming opaque rulesets and inscrutable resolutions, ensuring the educational content of other debates in the future. It’s incumbent upon us that we stand against these tactics, as well-intentioned as they may be, so that the quality of debates doesn’t plummet into the inner mantle.
To show my commitment to education, I now post the names of educational sites that may be of use to pedagogues and students alike:

Wikipedia

Cool Math Games

Debate Art

Google Scholar

PBS Kids

YouTube

Syracuse University’s TRAC Database

Google Books

C3: Personhood K

Con’s heterosexuality postulation reduces personhood to the result of copulation from heterosexual partners. This formulation unravels under scrutiny. Identity stems from more than coitus. A Boise State University study found that environmental factors, such as the household and neighborhood that someone grown up in, also factor into political ideology, a component of identity (5). People may choose their favorite color, sports team, or author with none of it having to do with their conception.

By ignoring people’s identity, my opponent has violated Kant’s Humanity Formulation, which demands “respect” for fellow humans (6). One cannot use humans as a mere means to an end. What Con is doing is worse; he’s using people as a means to no end. By treating people as husks of flesh that pop out of birth canals, he devalues life and eschews identity development. He treats all humans as robots. In the book Breakfast of Champions, this idea drives Dwayne Hoover, a well-to-do Pontiac dealer, to commit awful acts. This isn’t far from the truth. A study from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2017 found that dehumanization increases instrumental violence (7). Society cannot function unless people are capable of solving their problems with mercy and mutual understanding. When people view others as maladaptive I-phones or Pontiacs, they cease to act with mercy. Who can blame them? From their perspective, they are doing nothing more than committing violence against a machine.

At a time in which people are now being reduced to statistics in a cruel fashion (be it an updated coronavirus death count or the Myanmar genocide’s displaced persons’ count), it is more important than ever that we start caring about each other again. Let’s stop treating people as interchangeable robots. A Con ballot is an important step because it penalizes identity-stripping behavior. While I have no doubt that my opponent never meant to do that, it must be called assiduously to prevent further mishaps.
 
Sources

 


Round 2
Con
"To deny the existence of what is right in front of you is an ultimate denial of one’s senses, which is equivalent to the denial of the self. If we can’t trust what we sense, we have no idea what we are or where we reside. For all we know, we could be stuck in a virtual reality program."

"Therefore, because homosexuality exists, it is accepted already. Even the most ardent homophobes in the world can agree they exist even if they don’t see eye to hate-filled eye. Per the definition of accept, I have fulfilled my burden"

This is pretty much what your case is. Everything else, well let's say you can save your energy for what else you find useful.

So basically our senses, particularly our eyes accept the sight of homosexuality because our eyes don't reject the images. It accepts the images of homosexuality/same sex marriage.

Now what about all people?

According to the way you're defining it, acceptance , bodily speaking of our visual sense, we accept.

So blind folks don't accept homosexuality/same sex marriage. They are people as well.

From the description/first round : " For the whole world of people to accept"

title : Your proposal to have all people accept homosexuality/same sex marriage.

Emphasis on the word "all".

This did not fulfill the proposal.



Pro
Keep in mind that Kritiks are a priori issues. These arguments are derived from preconceptions about the debatable topic, and thus take precedence over post-conception ideas of topicality, inherency, solvency, etc. Put another way: if my opponent and I were building a house, and we were debating where to build the house, it would be remiss of me to not mention that the blueprints call for the house to be made of gingerbread. At that point, location is immaterial. When an idea is flawed from its preconception, it must be pointed out before a hurricane comes through and levels the proverbial gingerbread house. The unsteady foundation of the house parallels the unsteady foundation of a debatable topic. I contend that his topic is a house made of toothpicks and straddles an active volcano, but even if it wasn’t, I still played along and answered the resolution. Ergo, to pass the “vibe check,” Con cannot ignore the unsteady foundation of this topic’s pre-genesis.

He drops 2/3 of my case. My education and personhood Kritiks are uncontested. I have a lot of space to explain them again, so I will.

Education

Con advances that education is important in debate through his ruleset. I concurred that education is important. His very ruleset is antithetical to educational purposes because he obfuscates the resolution, the ruleset, and the burdens. I adduce multiple instances of this in the ruleset. Here are the highlights

1) The rules and resolution include verbiage that contradicts each other. While the resolution asks me to justify homosexuality/ same-sex marriage, the rules imply that I should focus my efforts on defending homosexual behavior and desire. These are fundamentally different burdens. People can have desires and/or “experiment” without identifying as LGBT (1). Con muddled the discussion at the onset. In doing so, he prevents me, his opponent, and the readers from extracting much educational content. An inscrutable discussion is harder to extract information from, while one where all the cards are on the table enables learning.

2) The burdens are imbalanced. My onus in the debate is large. I have to proffer a formulation that would allow for people to “accept” homosexuality worldwide without exception. Pro’s burden is nonexistent. He only needs to sit there and say “not everyone believes that” or, in his case, “there are blind people” without posing a positive defense of anything.

I now quote from Con’s rules:

“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.” [emphasis mine]

Aside from the inexplicable wordiness and random capitalization, the intention of this debate is clear. Con wants “those that view it” (“it” being the debate) to garner knowledge from our conversation. If I am the only one defending a burden, then I am the sole person in the debate acting as a teacher. I’m the one creating formulations, defining terms, and presenting evidence. Look at my opponent’s middling responses up till now. He ignores 2/3 of my case in his most recent post, and his first case is nothing but a restatement from the rules. In short, I create educational content, and my opponent sits on his hands.

Here’s another quote from Con:

“When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.”

Ergo, since I am the one that “accomplished that,” I should be the victor of the debate.

3) I offer educational websites that facilitate learning. My opponent doesn’t do this at all. Even if he did, it would not compensate for the critical errors that make this debate nothing if not a semantical exercise. Here are a few more:

Associated Press

Project Gutenberg

National Geographic

Brain Pop

Khan Academy

All of the above is more or less conceded by Con. He, crucially, concedes my impact. A vote for me is a vital step toward increasing educational debates. If people see this debate and realize that ineffable debate topics/rules siphon the education out of debating, they are less likely to use such tactics. They will call out people that use these tactics too.

Personhood K

My opponent surmises that this point is unimportant, so he won’t even address it. This is bunk.

A fundamental rejection of identity formulation is not something to be swept under the rug. I already produced a study and a parable (Breakfast of Champions) proving that reducing identity to being a husk of flesh leads to violence. Promoting this kind of thinking may inspire others to see people not as humans but as robots. Passing a Pro ballot is a step in the right direction toward ending this type of violence.

By standing against Con’s formulation, we become cognizant of this kind of thinking in our daily lives. We become less susceptible to identity-stripping behavior simply by recognizing it.

Definitional Analysis

Con drops my definition of“accept.” I also mentioned that “correct” is used interchangeably, which makes sense unless the rules and resolution are asking me to uphold different burdens.

Con’s Faulty Rebuttal

I'll present my argument and my opponent’s response

I posited that the definition of “accept” means “recognize as true” and because we all know, from our senses, that homosexuality is true, we already accept it.

Con refutes this by saying that blind people don’t have eyes.

I never suggested that sight was the only way to transfer information to people. He forgets about braille too, a language that can be read via touch. What about sound? People have access to TVs, radios, etc. They can also converse. I never stipulated that sight is the only applicable sense.

My opponent also misconstrues my burden. I quote from Con’s rules:

“Basically you would come up with an argument that demonstrates that homosexual desire and behavior is correct just as heterosexuality desire and behavior.”
Notice the words “just as.” My burden is to show that homosexual “desire and behavior” is equally acceptable to heterosexual “desire and behavior.”

Yet, Con would argue that this isn’t true. My burden, if I am to believe him, is that I need to prove that homosexuality is superior. Why? Leaving aside my argument, let’s subject
Con’s test to his own formulation. Keep in mind that my definitions of “accept” remains unrefuted.

1) Life stems from heterosexuality.

2) People accept heterosexuality.

3) Accept means “to believe true.”

If this is all correct, then Con’s problem with my point unravels his own formulation. Some people, especially those with mental disabilities, infants (and those that die the minute after their birth or in the womb,) and people who lost all their senses, will never know that they are the result of heterosexual copulation. Con’s formulation also does not garner universal acceptance because others can choose to not believe it/not be capable of understanding Con’s communication of his formulation.

So, if Con’s test dooms his formulation, what now? Well, the burdens, as I’ve mentioned before, ask me to prove “that homosexual desire and behavior is correct just as heterosexuality desire and behavior.”

Con’s formulation defends the purported universal acceptance of heterosexuality. This is the only defense in his case. Con’s analysis of my formulation can be applied to his case. Therefore, my postulation is "just as" accepted as Con’s.

Because both formulations suffer from the same problem, I still prove that they are “equally correct.”

If we assign a score of “-1” to a recognizable flaw in an argument, both heterosexual and homosexual “desire and behavior” stand at a “-1.” There is no reason for asymmetrical point distribution, so assigning a “-2” to my formulation is out of the question.

When Con says I don’t prove my burden, he really tells me, “your formulation must be better than mine.” Nope. The rules ask that I prove that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal, or “just as” accepted. Whether the argument is supposed to convince all people or just some, the formulation needs only be as correct as Con’s.

Conclusion

With 2/3 of my case conceded, my respectable opponent has failed the proverbial “vibe check.” Even if he did address the Kritiks (Ks for short) he still needs to successfully refute my formulation. Since my burden was to prove that homosexuality is “just as” accepted as heterosexuality, his refutation is meaningless. It may be true that the resolution, on its own, demands a universal formulation that anyone can accept, but multiple caveats have been provided by Con in the rules themselves clarifying my actual burden. Don’t let Con untether this debate from the ruleset he created in the beginning. 
I respectfully ask that the judges vote for Pro.

Sources





Round 3
Con
"Con drops my definition of“accept.” "

I'm so sorry . How are you using the word "accept"?

I thought you meant it as in the context of our senses.

We're just having a misunderstanding.

"I posited that the definition of “accept” means “recognize as true” and because we all know, from our senses, that homosexuality is true, we already accept it."

See , here you are saying "senses". The senses communicates to us, the world around us and all that exists in it. Something true means something real, does it not ? It means it exists. So I'm understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, we accept something by knowing it's real. See unlike many others , I try to get understanding. Not assumption but a positive communication of words. We KNOW what is real via our senses. Our senses tap into the physical surroundings.

One thing you mentioned was sight so I made a response to that. I can't assume you're offering any other points than what you've made . You just said "what's right in front of you " and then mentioned about hate filled eyes. So you were dealing with sight. The sight of something straight ahead.

I said those that can't see can't accept by this definition. They can't see what's real . Now you want to add to your point and back pedal to try and refute. Ok , let's move forward and SEE what else you got.
 You mentioned about braille.

"I never suggested that sight was the only way to transfer information to people. He forgets about braille too, a language that can be read via touch."

Again, I won't make your arguments for you. I won't assume anything you could of said along with a point you made. Now that I made a rebuttal to what you said, now you're thinking more into being detailed in a point. So me forgetting something is saying I didn't assume something you may have forgotten to put forth in your point. You didn't bring up braille so neither did I.

You have to prove that all people can and read braille. Furthermore more to that, you have to prove that the braille is discussing homosexuality/same sex marriage.

"What about sound? People have access to TVs, radios, etc. They can also converse. I never stipulated that sight is the only applicable sense."

It's understood you now want to be more detailed in your point as you thinking more in depth. That's good so let's move along.

To the deafblinded folks, by what you're saying, they don't accept homosexuality/same sex marriage.

So look, this topic is about your proposal to have all people accept this thing. As we can see , our impaired folks are being left out.

Oh and about the conversing, right they "sure" can but not required. Those that are mute, reserved, perhaps mentally disabled to form speech and those unfortunate without a voice, they can't show what they accept with an inability to speak.


"Yet, Con would argue that this isn’t true. My burden, if I am to believe him, is that I need to prove that homosexuality is superior. Why? Leaving aside my argument, let’s subject
Con’s test to his own formulation. Keep in mind that my definitions of “accept” remains unrefuted."

No offense as I think there is some impairment here on your part.

No where did I say prove superiority. I said come up with a proposal that all people would accept homosexuality/same sex marriage like heterosexuality.

This debate is not about debating the definition you choose to use for a word. I just have to understand what you're communicating. You missed my other debate about being a walking talking dictionary. You can mix it any way you want as long as I don't get mixed up about what you're saying.

I believe you're saying that people accept the existence of homosexuality on account of their senses accepting reality which contains homosexuality. I don't think that's a complicated position to take but correct where I've gone incorrect on that.

Now to the point I'm getting to on account of what's wrong with this argument is that it doesn't address the context of this debate. The context concerns all people. As we can see, when we're talking about people's senses, abilities and exclusive circumstances, it's far too relative. The circumstance just depends on the person's condition.

Up untill this round, it appears your point was aimed at the more general public. Now we do have to include all and that's all these niches that come into play.

"Accept means “to believe true.” "


"If this is all correct, then Con’s problem with my point unravels his own formulation. Some people, especially those with mental disabilities, infants (and those that die the minute after their birth or in the womb,) and people who lost all their senses, will never know that they are the result of heterosexual copulation. Con’s formulation also does not garner universal acceptance because others can choose to not believe it/not be capable of understanding Con’s communication of his formulation."

So I guess because of this, all people can't accept homosexuality which that is what the debate is dealing with and you coming up with a proposal , proposing how all people would do so. I guess you can concede now that you can't propose that. I'm glad you mentioned babies, infants and newborns because you would have to deal with that rebuttal too.

You're position is to accept homosexuality/same sex marriage by way of believing and knowing/acknowledging it's existence but yet you take on this challenge. You're now back pedaling , going through this beat by beat, it doesn't meet the condition of the proposal.

Nobody is arguing that same sex affairs don't exist. Nobody is arguing that people don't accept this thing. This is a proposal challenge for you to suggest how all people undeniably would have to accept homosexuality.

"So, if Con’s test dooms his formulation, what now? Well, the burdens, as I’ve mentioned before, ask me to prove “that homosexual desire and behavior is correct just as heterosexuality desire and behavior.” "

You seem to be hung up on the comprehension of this. The whole idea is that all people would have no choice but to accept homosexuality/same sex marriage and you would show in your proposal how so. Now is it not correct that people support something or accept something because it's "right" to them? 
I just said what would help in your proposal . If all people can accept this thing while seen as wrong, please feel free to demonstrate. It's just a package deal. 

"When Con says I don’t prove my burden, he really tells me, “your formulation must be better than mine.” Nope. The rules ask that I prove that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal, or “just as” accepted. "

No here's from description : "So what could you say that would make homosexuality undeniable period?

For the whole world of people to accept homosexuality, what could you say in one sentence that gives us all no choice to accept it?

Something so undoubtedly so that everything else we believe and accept about sex or sexuality would confuse or contradict our position if we're not accepting to homosexuality."

Now that's in line with the title of the debate . Your proposal to all people accepting, you started off with our senses, but that only covers some people. Now you've backpedaled to now just saying equality.

Going through this debate, you're going through these factors, thinking things through realizing where you should stand. The debate is not about anything else but you're proposal and the rebuttals to it. Nothing else needs to be critiqued or discussed. If you disagree about side notes made about other sexualities, it's inessential. The topic statement is about one alone. The side notes aren't the crux going up against to what you wish to suggest. See this is about what you can suggest and can it hold up.

"Since my burden was to prove that homosexuality is “just as” accepted as heterosexuality, his refutation is meaningless."

I didn't say this anywhere. You're substituting "correct" with "accepted " because you don't agree with what was said about heterosexuality. But the challenge still says specifically for you to propose that all people accept homosexuality. Which you agree indirectly can't be done.

Now if we have a fundamental disagreement about heterosexuality ,then this challenge wasn't for you. This would only work with people that are aware of the truth concerning heterosexuality.

So yes if we have a fundamental disagreement, we can't really go no further. It's like believing two different fundamental biblical doctrines but the debate is on a smaller or subset topic inside of that but that topic can't be reached appropriately because the root of it is lost. So the branch to that root can't be explored.




Pro
Drop it like it’s hot

My Kritiks must be scalding. He drops both of them. Remember, a vote for Pro is a vote for increased educational content in debates (which my opponent tacitly agrees is good per his rules) and a reduction in instrumental violence due to less identity-stripping behavior. He concedes these impacts across two rounds. If he had anything to say about them, he almost certainly would have tried to refute them by now. Since he hasn’t, it can only be assumed that he agrees, forgot, or doesn’t think them unimportant. Even if he doesn’t think they’re important, I contend they do matter. See my house example from the previous round. If, from preconception, a debatable topic is flawed, these flaws must be explored before all other issues.

Absent a refutation, please flow these arguments.

My opponent’s myopic “insight” about the burdens

I find it apt to start with this. Con contends that I only mentioned sight in my first case. This is untrue. I used the plural “senses,” which, and I’m baffled that I need to explain this, encompasses more than just sight. At the very least I’m talking about 2 senses.

“To deny the existence of what is right in front of you is an ultimate denial of one’s senses.”

He gets confused because I use the term “what’s right in front of you” which he associates with sight. If I snap my fingers “right in front of you” and then I snap my fingers 200 feet away (that is, not right in front of you,) then there should be a difference in volume.

The important part is this: Con believes that I am leaving some people out of my formulation because some people cannot see, hear, and communicate

Allow me to restate the burdens.

“Basically you would come up with an argument that demonstrates that homosexual desire and behavior is correct just as heterosexuality desire and behavior.”

This “argument” needs to be in the form of a universal proclamation of homosexuality’s acceptance. My postulation needs to prove that homosexual “desire and behavior” is just as correct as heterosexual “desire and behavior.” The only defense of heterosexual “desire and behavior” comes from Con. His formulation suffers from the same issue. Because there are people with only moments to live outside of the womb, because there are people incapable of understanding that heterosexuality exists due to mental impairment, and because children are incapable of defining their own gender until 3 years of age (1) (and are unlikely to know what copulation is until much later in life,) my opponent’s postulation defending the acceptance of heterosexuality is equally flawed (1). It leaves people out.

Nothing in the debate resolution or description indicates that the “win condition” is presenting an ironclad statement. He asks what I could say in one or five sentences to justify homosexuality to the masses, and the debatable topic is “Your proposal to have all people accept homosexuality/same sex marriage.”
None of this informs me what I am supposed to prove, it only tells me what I am supposed to include. I just know that, somewhere in my argument, I need to create a postulation defending homosexuality to the masses. It isn’t until I get to this sentence that I get a clear idea of what I’m supposed to do:

“Basically you would come up with an argument that demonstrates that homosexual desire and behavior is correct just as heterosexuality desire and behavior.”

This is an explicit instruction on what I need to prove. It tells me what I need to “demonstrate.” I’ll adhere to that. Since I proved that homosexual desire and behavior are fundamentally equal to heterosexual desire and behavior because both postulations suffer from the same flaw, my burden is fulfilled. His response to all of this is that, since I admit that there are some people who won’t be able to understand my formulation, I lose the debate because it can’t be a universally accepted argument. This is flagrantly against his own rules that he made.

Regardless of Con’s intentions, his rules ask that I prove that homosexuality is just as accepted as heterosexuality. Since the only person arguing for heterosexuality’s acceptance is Con, and he fails his own test, it would be remiss of me not to point out that both postulations are equal in veracity. In other words, heterosexuality is just as accepted as homosexuality per the postulations presented. This debate is not about whether my postulation can convince everyone. Also, this debate isn’t just “coming up with a proposal.”

You know what, I’ll make it even simpler.

Con says that homosexuality is accepted. He offers a formulation to prove it. He asks that I, Pro, prove that homosexual behavior and desire are just as accepted as heterosexuality. How do we know that heterosexuality is accepted? Con offers a formulation to prove it. His proof is flawed. Because we suffer from the same flaw, both are equally acceptable/correct/undeniable. Therefore, homosexual behavior and desire, per my postulation, are just as accepted as heterosexual behavior and desire.
Con can cherry-pick from the description all he wants, but he cannot deny that what I said is true.

There are caveats that have been helpfully provided in the rules. If you didn’t want them exploited, you shouldn’t have put them there. In fact, the win condition that Con is now sticking to, that my argument needs to be 100% accepted by everyone, is bogus. Where does it say, explicitly, in the rules, that if my argument isn’t accepted by 100% of people that I must lose the debate? Nowhere. It may be an intuitive jump to take, but the rules explicate what the topic of debate is, namely, proving that both are equally acceptable. Keep in mind that none of this reasoning has really been contested. He only says, “this is not what the debate is about.”

Definition

I think that the reason you interpret people as “walking talking dictionaries” is that you have a problem with clarity. Among other things, you don’t:

Define terms

Explain the burdens

Present debate topics that don’t need to be arduously unpacked

Address some arguments made by your opponent

You make your opponent do all the heavy lifting. In your description, as you mention yourself, you ask:

"So what could you say that would make homosexuality undeniable period?”

Undeniable means "unable to be denied". It does not pertain to morality or being “right.” Yet, in the description, you ask that homosexual desire and behavior be “correct.” There’s a contradiction.

Con presented a new definition of “accept” pertaining to “morally right” this round. I’ve already shown that per the rules (including that nice tidbit about being “undeniable”) it is inconceivable that this is what Con had in mind when he presented his topic. A) the word “undeniable” doesn’t have anything to do with being morally right, it has to do with whether people “deny homosexuality” (like one “denies” allegations of fraud) and B) His own formulation would be flawed if this new definition was intended because anti-Natalists believe that life is fundamentally negative and heterosexuality increases life through the “heterosexual behavior” of reproduction.
From the description and rules, you ask that I postulate something that makes homosexuality undeniable, accepted, and correct. These three words imply different burdens. I would say “choose one,” but we are now wrapping up this debate, so it’s a bit late to get finicky with definitions that, hitherto this round, have been accepted. I even mention the “correct” problem in my last round and my first round.

I reserve some more space for additional educational websites:

Reddit
Brain Pop Jr.
Mayo Clinic
JSTOR
CDC
College Websites
Desmos
Any of the URLs I sourced so far

Source





Round 4
Con
"He gets confused because I use the term “what’s right in front of you” which he associates with sight. If I snap my fingers “right in front of you” and then I snap my fingers 200 feet away (that is, not right in front of you,) then there should be a difference in volume."

You used language such as "hate filled eyes". Did you forget that? I didn't. Are eyes for sight?
Do better than this.

"The important part is this: Con believes that I am leaving some people out of my formulation because some people cannot see, hear, and communicate"

You were being non- disingenuous so far. Are you saying nobody is impaired of the senses?

You realize this does not validate all acceptance by the definition you tried to use. Do better than this.

"Allow me to restate the burdens.

“Basically you would come up with an argument that demonstrates that homosexual desire and behavior is correct just as heterosexuality desire and behavior.”

This “argument” needs to be in the form of a universal proclamation of homosexuality’s acceptance. My postulation needs to prove that homosexual “desire and behavior” is just as correct as heterosexual “desire and behavior.” "

Sure because it means you would have fulfilled the challenge of the debate title. See you're picking apart the context by dropping the title, looking at the "regulations" designed to help you meet the burden of the title. Your job is to meet the burden of the title, not try to refute "regulations". In other words, you're trying to argue about "regulations" to evade the actual challenge, the greatest red herring right here.
Either way, if you build an argument showing how correct , exactly correct or not as correct, *****your burden is still of the title***. That is, your demonstration of all people bound to accept homosexuality/same sex marriage.

"The only defense of heterosexual “desire and behavior” comes from Con. "

The debate has nothing to do with defense.

"Because there are people with only moments to live outside of the womb, because there are people incapable of understanding that heterosexuality exists due to mental impairment, and because children are incapable of defining their own gender until 3 years of age (1) (and are unlikely to know what copulation is until much later in life,) my opponent’s postulation defending the acceptance of heterosexuality is equally flawed (1). It leaves people out."

All irrelevant and a red herring. You are tasked with showing in a proposal of all people bound to accept homosexuality. Now you're trying to get off your mission by pointing the finger that all people don't accept heterosexuality likewise to all that don't accept homosexuality but you should of known this before accepting the challenge. You've taken it now. The challenge still stands for your proposal. This isn't a validity to call out something that can't be done on your part ,then claim it's valid. You have to call this before taking the bet. You don't take a bet you know you can't win. You walk right into it, you say it's impossible to win, you still lose .It's like challenging you to lift 500lbs, you try it knowing you can't or thinking you can lift it, find out it's not possible and saying "well I don't lose this challenge". You went ahead and took it.
The bet was not prove you can't make a proposal, it was for you to make one in accordance to the terms.

"Nothing in the debate resolution or description indicates that the “win condition” is presenting an ironclad statement. He asks what I could say in one or five sentences to justify homosexuality to the masses, and the debatable topic is “Your proposal to have all people accept homosexuality/same sex marriage.”"

Whatever word you want to use, no matter if it's "justify", "validate", that's all you. I ask again, for all people to accept this thing, isn't your proposal going to necessitate justification? If not, well pull off the proposal any way you can. See this is why what I said what would help to make your proposal is not debatable because either way the title of the burden is still the same.

"None of this informs me what I am supposed to prove, it only tells me what I am supposed to include."

Why would you take a debate in which you perceive has a lack of information for you to go with? Again, maybe case number two. You didn't know exactly what you were getting into. I strongly believe you were playing it by ear in this arena.

"I just know that, somewhere in my argument, I need to create a postulation defending homosexuality to the masses. It isn’t until I get to this sentence that I get a clear idea of what I’m supposed to do:"

If you think you need to build a defense up in order for all to accept it, I guess so. What if it was something you could show biologically , something that is within everyone? Would that warrant a defense or attack? If it's just reality, it's just something to be accepted within us. Like the blood or oxygen we have, it's just there as a reality. Nothing more actionable there but just to learn of it.

"This is an explicit instruction on what I need to prove. Since I proved that homosexual desire and behavior are fundamentally equal to heterosexual desire and behavior because both postulations suffer from the same flaw, my burden is fulfilled. His response to all of this is that, since I admit that there are some people who won’t be able to understand my formulation, I lose the debate because it can’t be a universally accepted argument. This is flagrantly against his own rules that he made."

The problem is , you're isolating that like the title is saying "prove homosexuality is correct". When you say "equal", what do you mean by that ?

When I stated what's below, the word "equal" doesn't appear there. Are you missing a word we should know about?

“Basically you would come up with an argument that demonstrates that homosexual desire and behavior is correct just as heterosexuality desire and behavior.”

The point of this being stated once again because I guess you have cherry picking tunnel vision, is to help in your proposal. It's allll abouttt yourrr proposal. You've taken your eye away from that and it's obvious why as indicated.


"Regardless of Con’s intentions, his rules ask that I prove that homosexuality is just as accepted as heterosexuality. "

Not the debate title. The rules as you call them are to help prove your proposal, the bigger picture.

"Since the only person arguing for heterosexuality’s acceptance is Con, and he fails his own test, it would be remiss of me not to point out that both postulations are equal in veracity. In other words, heterosexuality is just as accepted as homosexuality per the postulations presented. This debate is not about whether my postulation can convince everyone. Also, this debate isn’t just “coming up with a proposal.”"

A copout indeed. I can't meet that proposal but I'll pick at these things mentioned in the description. Ok, well still, nobody can come up with a proposal. People in the comments realized that, they made a smart move. I advise you to learn from them.

"Con says that homosexuality is accepted. He offers a formulation to prove it. He asks that I, Pro, prove that homosexual behavior and desire are just as accepted as heterosexuality."

Wrong, wrong, wrong , wrong. What does that title say?

Let me ask, you say you fulfilled what you call rules, does this mean that you've shown all people accepting homosexuality/same sex marriage by what you've suggested?

"How do we know that heterosexuality is accepted? Con offers a formulation to prove it. His proof is flawed. "

Another red herring to evade the proposal.

"Because we suffer from the same flaw, both are equally acceptable/correct/undeniable. "

So all people undeniably accept homosexuality like heterosexuality, in what way ? Your task is for all people.

"Therefore, homosexual behavior and desire, per my postulation, are just as accepted as heterosexual behavior and desire."

You will be specific here. Are you saying all accept or not all ?

"Con can cherry-pick from the description all he wants, but he cannot deny that what I said is true"

It's true not all people accept homosexuality, is that right ?

"There are caveats that have been helpfully provided in the rules. If you didn’t want them exploited, you shouldn’t have put them there. "

Exploit them for what ? I wanted to help you in proposing how all are bound to accept homosexuality/same marriage by using what I said.

"In fact, the win condition that Con is now sticking to, that my argument needs to be 100% accepted by everyone, is bogus."

So disingenuous here. The title has been what it was before you took the debate.  Ok you're crying about that, no conceding from you. You're saying "no fair", "no fair". I mean titles don't become null and void.

"Where does it say, explicitly, in the rules, that if my argument isn’t accepted by 100% of people that I must lose the debate? "

There are no rules other than what you see. We do have to have a foundation, do we not? The deciding line started with a topic. Does the topic not say it all?  Your argument is to accomplish the topic challenge. You're arguing about what was said in the description that does nothing for your proposal. So when you ask why does there have to be 100 percent acceptance as the topic says, I ask again , is it just null and void?

If we're doing debates where the topic statement has no purpose, I'll throw them out in the future with you . I thought it was a given.

Attempting this argument of silence, the great fuss about so called rules that aren't there, is the great red herring. We see the larger picture here you wish to avoid. Coming up with this ad hoc attempt about a perceived rule that somehow gives an out or excuse from your real burden.
We can see all this is true. Notice how you started with the idea of senses for acceptance , then as we moved forward, that fell by the wayside. You didn't start off with agreeing with me that you don't have a proposal for acceptance of all people. You're slick as you slides back , back pedaling into it.

"It may be an intuitive jump to take, but the rules explicate what the topic of debate is, namely, proving that both are equally acceptable. "

Is that what the title says? This is very inconsistent of you and what you're saying is not any clearer but just as muddled. Are you proposing all people are bound to accept homosexuality/same sex marriage?

Which one is it?

"Keep in mind that none of this reasoning has really been contested. He only says, “this is not what the debate is about.” "


Are you proposing all people are bound to accept homosexuality/same sex marriage?

If so? How?
If not? You concede to my position which is you can't , you can't, you can't propose such a thing.

That's all the points and attempted rebuttals I see concerning the topic. The rest is some preaching on how you want to use your words.

I said and used the words in the way I meant. As I do each time before the debate starts, questions or comments , don't be shy, send them all through.

So basically:

Are you proposing all people are bound to accept homosexuality/same sex marriage?

If so? How?
If not? You concede to my position which is you can't , you can't, you can't propose such a thing.






Pro
Burdens

Con, you cannot argue that the burden was sufficiently explained in the topic sentence. As I’ve already shown, the description, rules, and title imply different burdens through the use of different words (undeniable/accepted/correct.)

Furthermore, it is not explained what would constitute a “win.” One might naturally assume that the win condition for Pro is to present an argument that everyone agrees to on Earth. That would all be fine and dandy, except that Con’s postulation which supposedly would garner “universal acceptance” of heterosexuality wouldn’t do so. Would Con create a debate topic that even he couldn’t fulfill? I would hope not. Even if he did, one sentence in the entire rules sums up what I need to do.

“Basically you would come up with an argument that demonstrates that homosexual desire and behavior is correct just as heterosexuality desire and behavior.”

If we assume that Pro’s postulation in the rules explains heterosexuality’s universal acceptance, and my postulation explains the homosexual equivalent, let it be known that they are equal to each other. Ergo, homosexuality and heterosexuality are “just as” correct, especially since the only criticism that my opponent made dooms his own postulation.

He says that I drop the title. I don’t. My postulation comes in the proper format: a “universal acceptance” postulation. All the title asks me to do is include this postulation. It asks for:

“Your [my] proposal to have all people accept homosexuality/same sex marriage”

I gave the proposal. It’s just as strong as Con’s.

Moreover, nothing in the title suggests that it would have to pass the “universal acceptance” rule. It just demands my proposal. So, claims from Con that the “burden comes in the title” are erroneous. For future reference, the burdens are usually set in the form of a framework at the beginning of the debate. Since Con refused to provide one and just restated the rules, I set the burdens myself from what I divined of the rules. If he has a problem with it, it was his duty, not mine, to present something approaching a lens of analysis.

Con tries to spin my argument as tangential to the context of the debate. In actuality, I’m the person that included context, namely, that of the rules. Without rules, debates like this one and “you’re a walking, talking dictionary” are undiscussable on both sides. Surely, the imposer of the resolution doesn’t mean an actual dictionary, yes? But, from the title alone, a literate person could just say “well, I’m made of flesh and blood and not bound and published wood pulp because the latter is not sentient and probably wouldn’t be able to use a keyboard.” If rules were included, then the proponent of the resolution would explain what that topic meant. This “let’s just look at the topic and none of the rules” is also antithetical to extracting educational content, which I will get to later.
In any case, this is what my opponent says about the words “just as.” I want to include this because it is the only halfway substantial refutation of my argument.
“The problem is , you're isolating that like the title is saying "prove homosexuality is correct". When you say "equal", what do you mean by that ?

When I stated what's below, the word "equal" doesn't appear there. Are you missing a word we should know about?”

If something is “just as” important as something else, they are equally important. If I am to demonstrate that homosexuality and heterosexuality are “just as” correct/accepted/undeniable, and I do this by showing how both postulations (the sole “proofs” of universal acceptance) are equally flawed, then the conclusions drawn by those postulations (universal acceptance of heterosexuality/homosexuality) are just as flawed as each other, and therefore, just as correct/accepted/undeniable.
So, the rules, quite literally, ask me to prove that homosexuality is accepted just as heterosexuality is. Con seems to be under the impression that my response is a copout because I didn’t engage only with the title. He may have insinuated that to win I must provide a perfect postulation in the title, but then, he offers 2 explicit win conditions, both of which I already mentioned. There was the “just as” rule, and there was also this, which I added to my education Kritik:
“The aim of this interaction…That's who the victor of the debate becomes.”
Notice the last sentence. The “victor” of the debate, as it just so happens, must be the one that educates “those who view it” (the debate.)
If the only thing I needed to do to win was propose an ironclad statement, Con would not have included these other win conditions.

Dropped Arguments

Con calls the debate a “challenge.” A challenge, in actuality, would allow for arguments requiring lateral thinking. Con’s idea of a “challenge debate” is humdrum. He brushes off the Kritiks I offered because they don’t conform to his understanding of debating. In truth, these Ks are common occurrences on the academic debate circuit. I even laid out the reasons why Ks should be valid. If the foundation of a debatable topic is in question, then it must be addressed first. If I posed the debatable topic: “The US should withdraw troops from the gas planet Jupiter which resides in the Milky Way,” it is fair game to point out that the US has not placed any troops on Jupiter.
I find it interesting that my opponent would ask why I would accept a debate that is incomplete. Why? Because, even if a debate, from its very genesis, is totally screwy, I can still salvage a win by pointing that out and providing impacts. My impacts (which include violence reduction and an increase in educational content in debates) have not been refuted. Without any objection from Con, it’s pretty clear that the increased educational content of debates and reduction in violence will manifest. That’s more than enough to vote Pro.

Irrespective of these Ks, I proved that both postulations are equally acceptable. Since there are no other “proofs” demonstrating universal acceptance of heterosexuality or homosexuality, one can presume that this is enough to win.

Education K Redux

I find it important to expound upon this particular K because of my opponent’s behavior. Remember, the victor of the debate is supposed to be the one that presents something of value to those who read the debate.

“The aim of this interaction… Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately… When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.”

At the very least, my opponent agrees that educational content is important. He dedicated a paragraph to it at the very beginning of the ruleset. I already mentioned how the disproportionate burdens and opaque verbiage make this debate topic all but inscrutable, but Con added more to this point than I ever could have imagined. He bolded his entire 3rd round. This caused somebody in the comments to have his eyes “seared.” I only bring this up because my opponent felt it necessary to cite the comments too.

“Ok, well still, nobody can come up with a proposal. People in the comments realized that, they made a smart move. I advise you to learn from them.”

(Incidentally, “people in the comments realized that this debate is ridiculous” is not a convincing reason for me not to pick apart and use the vague rules to my advantage.)

The bolded text, in this case, impinged upon people’s sight. If they can’t see your text, how are they to extract any sort of educational content from it?
In addition, my opponent used a line-by-line style of refutation. This means that there are no headers in sight to separate different topic areas. The lack of organization prevents readers from grasping the concepts within the text quickly, which is also antithetical to learning. How can someone grasp what they cannot digest and understand?
Finally, my opponent’s attempt to skirt past the rules (regulations that he stipulated) stymies learning too. As much as he thinks that his topic already has proper “grounding,” the fact that he decided to ask Pro to prove homosexuality correct, undeniable, and accepted illustrates indecisiveness. Moreover, there is no burden setting in the one-sentence resolution, and the only demand is that I offer a “proposal.” I find it ludicrous that my opponent could prove that everyone could/would accept my theory. He would need the contact information of everybody on Earth and expensive polling software. Therefore, as any reasonable person would do, I looked to the rules, something that my opponent has written which elucidates his intent for the debate. So, when my opponent asks:

“Does the topic not say it all?”

The answer is an emphatic no. The dueling verbiage, multiple win conditions present, and Danielle’s critiques should have led you to that conclusion.  He also says:

“I said and used the words in the way I meant. As I do each time before the debate starts, questions or comments , don't be shy, send them all through.”

It is not Pro’s duty to sit back and ask questions so that Con can mold his topic into something a) worth debating b) understandable and c) bereft of confusing verbiage.

Presumably, my opponent put enough thought into the debatable topic to anticipate my attacks on his topic, rules, etc. If he didn’t anticipate these criticisms, he should have spent more time adjusting the rules to stave off my Ks and arguments.

A few more educational websites (there are a few less than normal since we are only a few days from Christmas and the people following along with these sites probably want a break.)
NPR
Gale
Legal Information Institute




Round 5
Con
"Con, you cannot argue that the burden was sufficiently explained in the topic sentence. As I’ve already shown, the description, rules, and title imply different burdens through the use of different words (undeniable/accepted/correct.)"

Begs the question to why you would take the challenge.

It doesn't make sense. A judge in a court can be expected to believe you didn't know better than this. You enter into a situation and the title is quite plain by the way, but you contend this "oh well I didn't understand this thing so I'll go in, no questions asked."

This cannot be excused. Hey , no problem for me to restart this challenge over, you can approach with an actual prepared, thought out proposal. No worries on that.

"Furthermore, it is not explained what would constitute a “win.” One might naturally assume that the win condition for Pro is to present an argument that everyone agrees to on Earth. "

My heart bleeds for you.

"If we assume that Pro’s postulation in the rules explains heterosexuality’s universal acceptance, and my postulation explains the homosexual equivalent, let it be known that they are equal to each other. Ergo, homosexuality and heterosexuality are “just as” correct, especially since the only criticism that my opponent made dooms his own postulation."

Do all people accept homosexuality/same sex marriage?

"I gave the proposal. It’s just as strong as Con’s."

So you're saying all people do accept this thing. I missed where it was suggested how all are bound to do so.

"Moreover, nothing in the title suggests that it would have to pass the “universal acceptance” rule. It just demands my proposal. "

Does "all" mean some? Again, you tried with the idea of our senses but didn't mentioned blind folks when you first introduced it. I had to bring it up because you only thought about some. You're cherry picking your way out of this problem. You're better off just being honest.

"Con tries to spin my argument as tangential to the context of the debate. "

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.

"So, the rules, quite literally, ask me to prove that homosexuality is accepted just as heterosexuality is. Con seems to be under the impression that my response is a copout because I didn’t engage only with the title. "

You can't fulfill the challenge in the title, is that right?

You keep arguing this "just as" idea because it's all you can do. You're arguing with what was said in the description like part of the description was in the title.

You're saying something is flawed or has a faulty premise that has nothing to do with your burden. Your position was to suggest how all are bound to accept homosexuality/same sex marriage. Mine is not all are bound to.

So if you're saying not all are bound or won't suggest that,  you're only conceding and agreeing with my stance.

The faulty premise idea would only work in this case if the title stated "prove that homosexuality is correct". If the basis is acceptance and you demonstrate the comparison, then you got something. That's what you're wishful thinking was of this debate . But the epicenter was not about correctness. It was about some clever argument that you could have came up with that would of shown how all people could not possibly avoid accepting homosexuality/same sex marriage. As of now, all people don't. That's my position and I know that this challenge was too great of a one yet.
I think somebody out there could come up with something.

Everything else is dropped because you know like I know that it didn't meet the challenge.

Next time get more information about a debate. If it's incomplete or you don't understand, you'll fall into error like this thinking you can argue on reduced understanding of something.

Don't try that fake it until you make it stuff. Don't pull that ad hoc, plug whatever sticks just to imposter a pseudo validity.

I understand you got hung up on what was said in the description because that was the only perceived advantage you had. But there is no consistent logic anywhere justifying to dismiss the title because it's too hard or perhaps impossible to some.

Claiming that this was flawed to make the challenge of the debate not work is no justification. I think if you understood that before moving forward, you wouldn't of took this debate. You would of seen and said " oh well this wouldn't work but the challenge still stands as it is". " I can't go in and dismiss this , flip side this thing and critique where this person has gone wrong in their description". The title still stands. If the title is not doable, then that's a debate you pass on. You learn all this before accepting because once you accept, the challenge is the challenge.
This is no opportunity to come on with little understanding of what is going on so now you have limited info of exactly what to make the arguments based on, then try to fake the funk with micro corrections here and there with this and that word the other person used. Tunneling in on a part of the description where other parts kept hammering in about your proposal and what would you say that leaves us all no where to go but to embrace same gender loving affairs.

You didn't dwell anywhere else including the title because it wasn't going to help you. That's not congruent here. That part you cherry picked so much, how does that harmonize with everything else?

Well I think I've circled enough here but it's true that people accept things understood to be correct . So maybe that could of helped with your proposal. I don't know as you didn't demonstrate. You only agreed with me that not all people accept same sex business by maintaining this equal acceptance conclusion.


Pro
Dropped Arguments

In interscholastic debate, there are frequently arguments predicated on a debate topic’s preconception. For instance, if I made a topic about withdrawing troops from the planet Mars, one would be hard pressed to find somebody who wouldn’t immediately make the argument that there are no troops on Mars (not yet anyway.)
This is where Kritiks come in. Kritiks are arguments about the preconceptions of a debate topic. They must be weighed in a debate if they are presented, especially if the opposing team offers no rebuttal. I offered 2 myself, 1 which pertained to education, and another which pertained to identity-stripping behavior. So far, Con has attacked neither because he believes them not relevant to the debate. Even if he doesn’t believe them important, they are. They attack the fundamental assumptions that my opponent made at the debate’s preconception, and they carry potent impact. I will recap them now.

a. Education

There is a great deal of opacity in the debate title, rules, and description. My opponent uses no less than 3 words to describe my burden in the debate, all with different meanings. Moreover, the title itself doesn’t make the burdens clear. It implies that I must advance a formulation that everyone needs to accept but it doesn’t outright say it. The only explicit instructions on my win conditions come in the comments:
“Basically you would come up with an argument that demonstrates that homosexual desire and behavior is correct just as heterosexuality desire and behavior.”
“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… When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.”

From the latter quote, we know that Con values education in his debates. I do too, which is why I find it weird that the rules contradict each other and impose a disproportionate burden on me. 2 heads are better than 1, which is why teaching is a dialogue between student and teacher and not a monologue. Monologues can be informative in short spurts, but they do not substitute for engagement. What we have in this debate isn’t even an effective monologue though. Not only have my Kritiks remained untouched, but Con, intentionally, or otherwise, bolded his text, making it harder to read and extract educational information from. Moreover, Pro demonstrated commitment to education by continually posting educational content and explaining statistics about LGBT prevalence, Benetar’s Asymmetry argument, and why Kritiks are important in debate activities.

My impact, which remains unrefuted, is that a vote for Pro prevents these tactics which make it difficult to learn from debates to the average reader. Moreover, per the ruleset, the person who educates others is supposed to be the true winner of this debate. Con says that I learn to not jump into debate topics and “ad hoc” my way to win. He also says that I learn not to accept debates with unclear rules. Both of these statements are ridiculous. The existence of Ks in and out of academic debates refutes this notion. If a ruleset, behavior, or topic contains vital flaws that can be exploited or need to be addressed, they should be addressed. Otherwise, there is no reason to pose anything other than impossible debate topics, so the proposer always wins. Where’s the education in that? How do we critically analyze ideas if we don’t look at the presumptions behind those ideas?

b. Humanity Stripping Behavior

Con’s heterosexuality postulation would indicate that people are nothing more than husks of flesh resulting from the fusing of gametes. He doesn’t contend this. My evidence shows that humanity-stripping behavior increases violence. Flow this across the debate.

Burdens

It appears that Con would want to untether himself from his rules. I don’t blame him, since his own rules are vague, but he wrote the rules, so he must stick to them. He tries to differentiate what was in the title and what he stipulated in the rules in his last round:

“You keep arguing this "just as" idea because it's all you can do. You're arguing with what was said in the description like part of the description was in the title.”

With this sentence, it appears that Con believes his own rules to be immaterial to the debate, or, at least, not nearly as important as the title. Why write rules that don’t inform the debate or the title? For that matter, if these rules are as irrelevant as they are purported to be, why do they contain win conditions and explicit instructions for my argument? Was I just supposed to ignore that? Hold Con to his explicit ruleset.

Here is what remains unrefuted. The rules stipulate that Pro (me) shows evidence that homosexual behavior and desire is just as “accepted” as heterosexual behavior and desire. Note that the description uses the word “undeniable,” the rules use the word “correct,” and the title uses the word “accepted” to describe my burden. Clearly, these words have different implications. Aside from the rules being contradictory to the title, the sole flaw that my opponent evinced about my argument also applies to the postulation proving heterosexuality to be “accepted.”

For a recap, here are the postulations.

Heterosexuality Postulation courtesy of Con

People are born from heterosexual copulation

Ergo, people accept heterosexuality

Homosexuality Postulation courtesy of yours truly

Homosexuality exists

People shouldn’t deny what exists, especially when they can use their senses to detect what is true

Problem

Not everyone has senses, ergo, not everyone knows that homosexuality exists, and not everyone knows that heterosexuality exists (think babies, blind people, etc.)

Con supplied the so-called “heterosexuality proof.” He didn’t need to include it, but he did anyway. In other words, since both postulations suffer from the same flaw, they are just as “accepted.” Remember my point-distribution from rounds prior. If 2 formulations suffer from the same flaw, there is no reason to penalize the veracity of 1 more than the other. I now quote again from the rules:

“Basically you would come up with an argument that demonstrates that homosexual desire and behavior is correct just as heterosexuality desire and behavior.”

I proved that homosexuality is just as correct as heterosexuality. The postulations’ respective conclusions can be no stronger than the logic used to make them (if I used the Kalam Cosmological Argument to prove God’s existence in a debate, the proof of God is only as strong as the logic of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.) Therefore, if each argument proving “acceptance” of homosexuality and/or heterosexuality suffers from the exact same problem, they should be equally “accepted.”

Previous rounds were used to explain why “accept” should be defined as “believe to be true.” In short, if the definition of “accept” was “believe to be morally right,” then Con’s formulation would suffer from a different problem. Namely, not everyone believes that birthing people is a morally correct action. Anti-Natalists believe that there is a fundamental advantage to non-life. Benetar’s Asymmetry presented a few rounds ago, indicates that non-life does not need to contend with while also not needing to deal with pleasure, the latter of which is not necessarily bad, the former of which is a definite good. On the other hand, life foists people into pain necessarily. Yet, newborns are not able to capitalize on this “non-living advantage” because they were born without consent. Ergo, universal acceptance of heterosexuality as a moral behavior is impossible because some people attach a negative value to new life. So, from the outset of the debate, it was unreasonable for anybody, including my opponent and I, to think that this debate had to do with “moral acceptance.”

Con’s last round placed heavy emphasis on the topic and “cherry-picking.” I conformed to the demands of the topic by making my postulation. The topic does say the word “all,” but there was no indication that I had to pass that test. The test I needed to pass was 2-fold and pretty much separate from the topic sentence. They were also clearer. One asked me to prove homosexuality was “just as” correct as heterosexuality, and the other asked that I educate people. I fulfill both.

Conclusion

Not much more can be said. My opponent continues to say that I didn't prove what was in the topic, but he ignores his won rules which ask for different win conditions. 2/3 of my case go unaddressed because my opponent deems them not topical to the debate at hand. They are though. They challenge the presumptions made at the outset of the debate. This idea of "only look at the topic" when the rules tell a different story altogether is something that seasoned debaters will exploit and hold you accountable for. Even if you don't believe my ironclad proof that homosexuality is "just as accepted" as heterosexuality, consider that Con didn't challenge any of these arguments. Not only that, these arguments have impacts that must be weighed. I humbly ask for a Pro ballot.