Instigator / Pro
1
1492
rating
334
debates
40.72%
won
Topic
#2696
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
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
0
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
blamonkey
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1677
rating
24
debates
93.75%
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.
****I'm bringing this back to your attention. I think and have optimism we can be honest with one another and I think many of us are smart.
The topic statement and everything to back it up in context is true.
I will start with an excerpt taken from somebody supposedly against the statement but was in much agreement based on what they said. They just didn't realize or look at it as such because often times we're numb and desensitized to what words and concepts amount to.
The excerpt is as follows :
"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. "
Text says think about. We're both advising you to think about it. The characteristic of each has a function/role and or mission. That mission may not coincide or parallel to that of a person. What happens when I refuse your mission because I got my own? *******
Focus there , add the remaining text as put before for context.
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
I want to be as clear as possible. I hope you'll be willing to receive what I say and not dismiss.
I'd like the audience making the comments understand just the same.
Nobody accepting homosexuality is saying no person .
What do I mean by "person"?
Extracting from the debate description is this :
"No person accepts homosexuality. That's absolutely no person as in their body accepts homosexual behavior."
So person , another definition for body is person. These words are important and we can cry about how games are made with them because a word used didn't live up to somebody's assumption. That's tough too bad. With me you always have the chance to confirm something with a question.
The phrase "l have nothing on my person" is I have nothing on my body. My physical anatomical organic body.
Therefore plugging this concept of the meaning into the phrase " no body accepts homosexuality."
So now we have to get specific as there are many parts of the body and the body to distinct from the head.
But the title translates to not having a body accepting of homosexuality.
The specific parts of the body related are the sexual reproductive organs. These are of the body. They're are bodily features or parts.
I can say my body rejected alcohol use or consumption to be direct. To be specific, the part or bodily part(s) actively involved , the GI tract or digestive system.
Either language is referencing to and or identifying with that which is , is correct.
It's not about a play on words but verifying the words used are correct and placed in their proper place. This is why it is important to understand what one is saying without preconceived intrepretations. No biases, just pure objective dialogue.
Now homosexuality is a sexuality that has a nature or function. Maybe function, I'll use that term as I understand people may have problems with the term "nature".
The function of homosexuality is in no way to allow different sexual reproductive organs to link in sexual activity.
Now to really understand this, sexuality can be defined down to a microsopic level. I'll probably make a debate topic on this too regarding whether the definition can be broken down further without a limit. As long as we continue to use words to explain detail after detail, the layers to peel continue.
To explain the above, sexuality can be looked at beyond the surface. What's going on bodily, internally , intricately? Something sexual in the condition of arousal.
Upon viewing a definition of "sexual" in the Google search engine, it states "relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals."
Notice the terms " physiological processes". Basically any function of the body of any body part related to sexuality.
So a broad window encompassing what we see at face value down to any part related to sexual activity. From the organ down to a cell.
That segues into the element or ingredient that the organ produces. You can reduce it down to just the fluid or cell. It's still of the sexuality category.
Stepping back to the function of homosexuality, it is not having the sexual reproductive organs or their sexual responses link with counter parts. To look at it molecularly or microscopically, it's not having those ingredients produced by counter parts to combine .
To the point again about language, we're still talking in the same environment of sexuality but we can identify sexuality at different locational points as it is all connected.
To put it in reference, let's look back at a point that was made.
"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 is sexuality being reduced down in molecular definition. The function of heterosexuality is still occuring as the main ingredients from it will behave just the same regardless of the method of transport. They are never unrelated from their source of production.
So when speaking of specific sexual elements, sexuality is being referenced. With that reference, it's related to something sexual which has to do with bodily activity. It's all connected.
The title of the debate is expressed in the most superficial wording of expression. But has much layers to it that can't all be expressed in the title. So much more layers that it's not "hanging low " to reach, it's so far in deep to reach. It's good to have people see something, really learn to take the opportunity to give something a chance for an explanation.
My body is in pain or I have cancer. To get more of an in depth identification, we can say back pain or lung cancer. It's still saying my body has these things. It's all connected or related.
"Sperm and an egg are necessary"
These are two different elements. They're two different sexual elements you might as well say.
They have functions of their own within the relationship of the body. A bodily feature produces this element that produces a function. A tiny box inside of a larger box inside of another inside of another , all related.
This bodily element's function does not identify with the function of homosexuality. It would have to reject it in order to retain its own .
Con
#2
I would usually shy away from refutations in the first round, but my opponent’s formulation is the crux of this debate. Sidestepping the formulation is sort of beating around the bush, so I’ll get to it pronto.
What is my opponent’s case?
Let’s start with the definitional analysis.
What is a body? A body, according to Pro, is the physical makeup of an animal. He tries to pinpoint the exact “bodily” functions that apply to the debate and settles on “sexual reproductive organs.”
I have 2 responses.
a. Organs v. Body
The debate is not about whether “sexual organs” are accepting of homosexuality, it’s about whether “bodies” are accepting of homosexuality. If I saw reproductive organs lying on the ground, I wouldn’t immediately think “look, there’s a body lying on the floor!” I would think “Dahmer must have been pretty hungry.” A body is composed of more than just the reproductive system.
b. Sex as a function of sociability
The gonads are not the only organ responsible for sex. The brain plays a role in facilitating reproduction through the release of sexually arousing chemicals. The brain is central to decisions making, so the decision to reproduce has its roots in the brain. Pro eschews the rest of the body and only focuses on the organs that he thinks can “accept” or “reject” homosexuality. This view of sexuality is myopic, apocryphal even, given widely disseminated research about the role of sex in prosocial behavior. As it turns out, sex in a variety of species (including humans) is used for bonding, bartering, and social integration (8) (9). In short, sex feels good, and people like to make other people feel good. It’s self-serving behavior. People who make other people feel good to get a self-esteem boost and may earn themselves a partner or friend (perhaps a friend with benefits.) To say that sex exists solely to reproduce would ape hidebound assumptions that have since been obliterated by more recent social science research.
Why does Pro ignore the role of social organs in sex? I think the answer is obvious. The parts of the body responsible for socialization are capable of accepting homosexuality. The brain can “accept” the fact that homosexuals exist, and it can “accept” the romantic advances of a same-sex partner. My opponent realizes this because he cites the definition of “sexual” from Google’s search results.
"relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals."
Pro zeroes in on the fusion of gametes (one of many physiological processes associated with sex) and ignores the rest of the definition, especially that of “intimate physical contact” and “activities connected” with “intimate physical contact.” If Pro accepts his definition, he accepts that kissing is as sexual as intercourse. They both fall under the broad umbrella of “sexual” activity. Therefore, lips are added to the bunch of organs that can feasibly be sexual, as is the neck, the brain, the hands, and (if someone is particularly frisky) the breasts. Can homosexuals accept “intimate physical contact” from a same-sex partner by reciprocating? You can bet your biscuits on it. My opponent’s fixation on the “linking” of sexual organs is interesting (and kind of gay, but I’m not judging.) However, the “body” should be recognized as a complete whole. When somebody doesn’t have something “on their person” they aren’t just talking about their gonads unless they stash their keys in their urethra. Furthermore, other parts of the body are sexual even if they aren’t reproductive. Reproduction is also not the end goal of all sex; social connections could be feasible end goals too. Ergo, even if an infant is not produced from sexual activity, the activity can still garner “acceptance” by social reciprocation. I can’t stress this enough:
Nowhere in the title or rules is it suggested that the function of sex is solely reproductive. That idea is false.
So, when Pro says this:
“The function of homosexuality is in no way to allow different sexual reproductive organs to link in sexual activity”
he is mistaken. The organs can “link” in “sexual” activity insofar as the action is related to “intimate physical contact.”
c. Accept & Pro’s Postulation
I give a definition of “accept” below, so I’ll make this quick. By “accept”, what Pro really means is that life starts with copulation, ergo, people must “accept” that heterosexuality created them. Also, people must reject homosexuality because homosexuality did not create them.
Why is the latter true? Just because something did not bring about someone’s creation does not mean that they cannot “accept” it. People possess brains. They can rationalize their acceptance or rejection of homosexuality however they want. In fact, homosexual mating simulations can increase fertility in some animals (11). Since Pro never differentiated between human and animal bodies, I trust that this evidence is sufficient to explain how homosexuality can play a role in reproduction. In part, homosexuality did create new life by increasing fecundity. Similar causal mechanisms are found in humans. Human women who pass on genes that predispose one to homosexuality tend to have more children. In other words, genes that tend to make people homosexual facilitate procreation (12). If these genes are responsible for more life being created (even if said life is homosexual) then technically, homosexual genes did create new life, and under my opponent’s postulation, the offspring of these women who pass down genes predisposed to homosexuality should accept that homosexuality, in part, created them. The animal species that increases fecundity via mating simulations, for the record, is the cnemidophorus neomexicanus.
Also, why can people only accept what they spawned from? Can someone not accept their homosexual brethren, that is, accept their behavior, even if homosexual sex does not, by itself, cause procreation? I see no obligation for me to reject homosexuality even if I didn’t spawn from it.
My Case
Body: The organized physical substance of an animal or plant either living or dead.
I chose this definition on account of the description which differentiates nobody and "no" body, the latter being the debatable term.
Accept: There are 2 definitions of "accept" that could apply to this debate. Either “approve of” or “believe to be true” should be used (3). In the context of this resolution, it appears that the former should be used. His claim, per the rules, was that no “body” “accepts homosexual behavior.” Unless stated otherwise, I doubt that this debate is about whether people believe that homosexual behavior exists.
Framing
The topic is written as a claim of fact with heavy, lopsided burdens on my opponent. As he proffered the topic, to begin with, I have no qualms asking him to uphold every word of it. So, for the record, my opponent must uphold that “no” body “accepts” homosexuality. He may try to juggle semantics with the word “body,” but each, distinct “body” must not accept homosexuality for my opponent to win. If even 1 body doesn’t, then my opponent loses this debate.
Onto my contentions.
C1: Homosexuality and the Body
a. Attraction
Homosexuals, by definition, are sexually/romantically attracted to same-sex partners. There are 4,000 species where this type of behavior can be observed (8). Sexual attraction is a bodily (namely brain) function. Norepinephrine and dopamine are released by the hypothalamus into the bloodstream as a result of sexual attraction, leading to giddiness and euphoria (1).
Ergo, homosexuals “accept” homosexual behavior whenever these chemicals are dispensed. They “approve of” the homosexual behavior of same-sex attraction because the attraction makes them happy. Humans naturally gravitate toward what gives them the most happiness, and bodily functions reward satisfaction.
b. Reasoning
A significant chunk of the world population now realizes that homosexual behavior should not be condemned. Principally, this stems from the recognition of transgressions perpetrated against homosexuals through penal codes and personal infractions. Sudan, for example, punishes homosexual behavior with prison time, but before 2020, they punished homosexual behavior with flogging (4). In total, there are over 60 countries that criminalize homosexual behavior, some of which execute “perpetrators” of the sodomy laws (5). It was only a couple of decades ago, 3 years after I was born, to be exact, that laws targeting homosexuals were abolished in the US pertaining to sexual conduct (although, Alabaman educators, per state statutes, must push the idea that homosexual behavior “is not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public”) (6) (7).
Therefore, people, with full possession of their mental faculties (as Danielle put it, an inextricable part of the body) are now clamoring for the repeal of these laws for moral and practical reasons. It is costly to put people in jail for extended periods of time and not without ethical implications.
Here’s the central thrust of my argument in case you missed it. People are now using their brains, the organ central to reasoning, to accept homosexuality. Over 90% of Swedes believe that society should accept homosexuality, and over 60% of Brazilians think so too (10).
Conclusion
Here’s where we’re at. Not only did I prove that homosexual genes are conducive for procreation, which, per Pro’s postulation, means someone born from fecund women who passed on a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality must accept that homosexuality played a role in their birth, (since non-fertile women can’t give birth) I also proved that people, using their social and cognitive organs, can accept homosexuality in a few key ways. Remember my framework. If even 1 body accepts homosexuality, I can comfortably win this debate. Since I’ve produced evidence of many bodies, both human and non-human, can and do accept homosexuality, I comfortably win this debate.
Sources
Round 2
Pro
#3
"The debate is not about whether “sexual organs” are accepting of homosexuality, it’s about whether “bodies” are accepting of homosexuality"
This statement right here right off the back shows a misunderstanding of what I just explained about when referring to the body, when referring to "bodily" parts, you're referring to the body. It's not organs versus the body. These things aren't against each other or aren't expected to be. They work with one another or should as they are connected.
" If I saw reproductive organs lying on the ground, I wouldn’t immediately think “look, there’s a body lying on the floor!” "
For some reason you want to separate the two and it is evident that the body and organs are related. That's why they're called bodily parts. They're parts of a body.
"A body is composed of more than just the reproductive system."
Let me help you understand what you're still apparently missing. My body has been cut.
Where on my body is the cut? My hand. My hand is a bodily part. There is more to the body than just my hand.
My body has a cut. That's a broad way of expressing that the cut is across my hand. Both expressions are correct and related.
"The gonads are not the only organ responsible for sex. The brain plays a role in facilitating reproduction through the release of sexually arousing chemicals. The brain is central to decisions making, so the decision to reproduce has its roots in the brain."
I shouldn't have to ask this but what is the definition of sex in this context excluding the gender definitions, etc. ?
There are many things that play roles like what somebody wears. We're not talking about what plays in a role, responsibility or duty ***leading*** to sex. The epicenter is sex itself.
"Pro eschews the rest of the body and only focuses on the organs that he thinks can “accept” or “reject” homosexuality. "
Right because the epicenter, according to what sex is has to do with the sexual reproductive organ(s).
"This view of sexuality is myopic, apocryphal even, given widely disseminated research about the role of sex in prosocial behavior. As it turns out, sex in a variety of species (including humans) is used for bonding, bartering, and social integration (8) (9). "
The problem is you're focused on everything around sex and a have myopic tunnel on the processes and systems surrounding sex.
In order to make your case , you have to make the basis for sex other than what it is concerning the organs. According to you , sex begins in the mind or in chemicals , etc.
Sexual things initiate outside of sex. It's called sexual because it is related to sex by the process /idea/system that builds, forms or leads to it.
Upon a google engine search , the stem - sex is pertaining to the sexual reproductive organs involved in penetration.
Doing a google search, the suffix - al means to relate. Something sexual relates to sex but isn't sex itself . When we're talking about any sexuality, it is whatever that relates to sex as it surrounds it.
"In short, sex feels good, and people like to make other people feel good. It’s self-serving behavior. People who make other people feel good to get a self-esteem boost and may earn themselves a partner or friend (perhaps a friend with benefits.) "
This topic isn't about what people's reasons for sex are nor is it about a defense for homosexuality. You and I know , know the body or bodily part has a function. That's the truth you ought to face. Now, this doesn't negate a person's own reason, mission or function on what they do with their bodies and body parts. A person can decide to reject against whatever it is they decide and likewise or vice versa.
"To say that sex exists solely to reproduce would ape hidebound assumptions that have since been obliterated by more recent social science research."
Well I never made the statement. You can look over all the text and the description. Nowhere you'll find the beginning part of that statement.
"Why does Pro ignore the role of social organs in sex? "
It's not ignoring , it's just irrelevant. This topic is about the biological or physiological role.
So for you to bring this up is a way to move the goal post.
"The parts of the body responsible for socialization are capable of accepting homosexuality. The brain can “accept” the fact that homosexuals exist, and it can “accept” the romantic advances of a same-sex partner. My opponent realizes this because he cites the definition of “sexual” from Google’s search results."
I made it clear in my description about people consciously choosing to accept things.
From the description:
"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?"
Is this an indication that you are not reading these descriptions when going into debates?
I made it very clear of the context and in terms of the physiological sense, not the intellectual sense. The first round expounded more from the description of the terms and context.
But it's expected that things have to be twisted, flipped around in order to stand correct.
I never said people can't accept things in the intellectual sense. You taking on this debate whether realizing it or not, being honest or not, you're taking the position that I'm wrong about physiological rejection.
I'm not in error in my stance so what do you do? Move the goal post .
"Pro zeroes in on the fusion of gametes (one of many physiological processes associated with sex) and ignores the rest of the definition, especially that of “intimate physical contact” and “activities connected” with “intimate physical contact.” If Pro accepts his definition, he accepts that kissing is as sexual as intercourse. "
This was the definition I found on the Google search engine so I can't take the credit for it by calling it my definition. I don't own google.
This is the definition of sexual , not sex. So how is kissing, sexual intercourse?
This is how people confuse people about sexuality.
"They both fall under the broad umbrella of “sexual” activity. Therefore, lips are added to the bunch of organs that can feasibly be sexual, as is the neck, the brain, the hands, and (if someone is particularly frisky) the breasts. "
Sure because it's related to sex that deals with the sexual reproductive organs. There's a thing called ***sex**** and there are things called ****sexual things****. What's the relationship, the difference and how can we determine a thing to be sexual at all? To avoid putting everything under a blanket and umbrella, unequivocally it has to be stimulation/relevance to sex itself.
"Can homosexuals accept “intimate physical contact” from a same-sex partner by reciprocating? You can bet your biscuits on it. My opponent’s fixation on the “linking” of sexual organs is interesting (and kind of gay, but I’m not judging.) "
Can a homosexual male accept kissing another male that stimulates a desire to want to use their male reproductive organ to get a certain feeling received by dispensing fluid into the other male that has a function to only accept the function it has to insert into a female's material?
That's the breakdown of what I'm saying regarding homosexuality as a whole. You can cherry pick but I'll give you the whole picture for what it is.
Any sexuality is not what it is because of sexual things, it comes down to the reality of sex ultimately. Anything connected with it is guilty by association in a manner of speaking.
"However, the “body” should be recognized as a complete whole."
If this is truly the case, acknowledge the response above. If you're really being honest, look at the entire picture here.
"When somebody doesn’t have something “on their person” they aren’t just talking about their gonads unless they stash their keys in their urethra."
They can be talking about anywhere on their body. I'm saying referring to a body part is referring to their body. One in the same, you can't separate the two.
"Furthermore, other parts of the body are sexual even if they aren’t reproductive. "
That's the difference between sexual and sex.
"Reproduction is also not the end goal of all sex; social connections could be feasible end goals too. "
Well there's the end goal for sex in and of itself and the end goal or purpose that is an individual measure for the individual.
"Ergo, even if an infant is not produced from sexual activity, the activity can still garner “acceptance” by social reciprocation. "
I don't get this statement. You can elaborate it if you like. May not be necessary.
"I can’t stress this enough:
Nowhere in the title or rules is it suggested that the function of sex is solely reproductive. That idea is false."
I agree that you shouldn't stress or have a nervous breakdown over something never stated. Nowhere from my side was a statement made about the purpose of sex.
I specifically referenced the function of physiological elements and organic parts so there be no confusion to what I'm talking about. By you simplifying, conflating, reducing, etc. what I'm saying, you're more or less making the topic out to be another opportunity for defending a sexuality , changing the debate completely.
This debate is not an attack on anything. It is looking at a technicality of the anatomy and setting the fact based on it. Many people don't and they don't have to base their actions, choices on the physiological order of the body.
The body has a function for nourishment but we can build hundreds of cases to support certain non-nutritious things we consume.
The fact still stands about what is nourishing to the body but people can make their own justifications outside of that about what they do and their personal agendas .
"he is mistaken. The organs can “link” in “sexual” activity insofar as the action is related to “intimate physical contact.”"
Is homosexuality about linking the same sexual reproductive organs or different ones?
"I give a definition of “accept” below, so I’ll make this quick. By “accept”, what Pro really means is that life starts with copulation, ergo, people must “accept” that heterosexuality created them. "
Let me correct you about something I say. The body which contains the bodily part and element accepts no other function than that of what is it inside the capacity of heterosexuality. This has nothing to do with intellect. I'm speaking to how the body or the body's parts function . Just so you're clear everytime I mention body, what I'm referring to is that. A baby that has no knowledge but has a body developing to function as such accepts this and also accepts breathing for example.The function of breathing has nothing to do with intellect.
My body breathes in air. Better yet, let me say my bodily part, the lungs take in air. I'm still talking about my person. So don't get sucked into a mess about the language. It's still correct either way it's put.
"Why is the latter true? Just because something did not bring about someone’s creation does not mean that they cannot “accept” it. People possess brains. They can rationalize their acceptance or rejection of homosexuality however they want."
Refer to previous response.
"Since Pro never differentiated between human and animal bodies, I trust that this evidence is sufficient to explain how homosexuality can play a role in reproduction. In part, homosexuality did create new life by increasing fecundity. Similar causal mechanisms are found in humans. Human women who pass on genes that predispose one to homosexuality tend to have more children. In other words, genes that tend to make people homosexual facilitate procreation (12). If these genes are responsible for more life being created (even if said life is homosexual) then technically, homosexual genes did create new life, and under my opponent’s postulation, the offspring of these women who pass down genes predisposed to homosexuality should accept that homosexuality, in part, created them."
I don't understand. Are you saying that having an offspring with homosexual development that will desire not to sexually reproduce , will sexually reproduce more ?
"Also, why can people only accept what they spawned from? Can someone not accept their homosexual brethren, that is, accept their behavior, even if homosexual sex does not, by itself, cause procreation? I see no obligation for me to reject homosexuality even if I didn’t spawn from it."
Hopefully by now you're understanding a distinction drawn between between the physiological aspect and intellectual aspect.
"The topic is written as a claim of fact with heavy, lopsided burdens on my opponent. As he proffered the topic, to begin with, I have no qualms asking him to uphold every word of it. So, for the record, my opponent must uphold that “no” body “accepts” homosexuality. He may try to juggle semantics with the word “body,” but each, distinct “body” must not accept homosexuality for my opponent to win. If even 1 body doesn’t, then my opponent loses this debate."
What don't you understand about what I've been saying? May be specifically in round 1 where the initial breakdown is you have a question. You're either dismissing or embracing.
"Homosexuals, by definition, are sexually/romantically attracted to same-sex partners. There are 4,000 species where this type of behavior can be observed (8). Sexual attraction is a bodily (namely brain) function. Norepinephrine and dopamine are released by the hypothalamus into the bloodstream as a result of sexual attraction, leading to giddiness and euphoria (1).
Ergo, homosexuals “accept” homosexual behavior whenever these chemicals are dispensed. They “approve of” the homosexual behavior of same-sex attraction because the attraction makes them happy. Humans naturally gravitate toward what gives them the most happiness, and bodily functions reward satisfaction."
So basically what you're trying to say, it's a physiological process and therefore a function of the body , therefore accepted by the body is that right?
Please respond with a yes or no.
"Here’s the central thrust of my argument in case you missed it. People are now using their brains, the organ central to reasoning, to accept homosexuality. Over 90% of Swedes believe that society should accept homosexuality, and over 60% of Brazilians think so too "
Yes I've made it clear of the distinction. This again has to do with the intellect. Making decisions and judgments are of the intellectual capacity, not the physiological response in sexual stimuli.
I'll say again, people can obviously make a conscious choice over something . That's not the argument or debate topic unless you dismiss context. I'm trying to give you more credit than that.
"Here’s where we’re at. Not only did I prove that homosexual genes are conducive for procreation,"
I see confusion, not proof. It doesn't make sense.
"which, per Pro’s postulation, means someone born from fecund women who passed on a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality must accept that homosexuality played a role in their birth, (since non-fertile women can’t give birth)"
We all must accept that when a homosexual person participates in some way ,form or fashion in the role of the heterosexual function that results in birth, the homosexual's role is worthless without it.
Is that true or false? These are points on the scoreboard for the side of heterosexuality. That's the truth. You can reduce down eliminating everything that's unnecessary but the heterosexual function. That's down to the miscropic level again concerning the elements that play their role and can't play it accepting other roles.
The homosexual function is not putting different elements together but the person can derail , detour to do so. But it is no longer a homosexual function at that point.
"I also proved that people, using their social and cognitive organs, can accept homosexuality in a few key ways. "
This is to say their brain is a physiological process , bodily part making their body or person accept homosexuality, is that right?
"I can comfortably win this debate. Since I’ve produced evidence of many bodies, both human and non-human, can and do accept homosexuality, I comfortably win this debate."
Not so fast. I want you to answer those questions I asked you so I can be clear on the agreement of your position.
Con
#4
Accept
For some reason, Pro seems to think that the moment he made his case, all semantical discussions would cease. He wants contenders to settle these concerns in the comments. A) Even if I did clarify all my semantical concerns in the comments, comments are discounted from the debate when it comes time to vote and publish RFDs (check the Voting Policy), B) semantics are inextricable from debating on this website and should not be excluded from the round just because my opponent doesn’t like it, and C), Pro, if he was worried about misunderstandings, should have adjusted the rules and debate topic to make them more understandable. All that aside, let’s argue definitions.
His version of “accept” depends on a functionalist view of the body. For instance, he claims that the GI tract can “reject” alcohol while a woman’s genitals could “accept” semen. Yet, not every part of the body has a function. People with only one kidney can live comfortable lives with few medical complications (2). Encyclopedia Britannica finds 7 vestigial bodily functions and parts (4). If every component of the body has a function, why does the tailbone exist? For that matter, what are we to make of body parts that serve multiple functions? The brain can access long-term and short-term memory. These are clearly distinguished functions that 1 organ controls.
If by “accept” my opponent means “performs the function that I think is the sole reason for this body part’s existence,” then he should have posted that immediately in the first round. Even if he did, the definition’s flaws are obvious. I could easily argue that gonads exist because they are pleasurable and foster social connections, and I would be equally correct in my assessment as my opponent. We also excrete from those gonads too. My opponent poses this “enlightening” question to me:
“Can a homosexual male accept kissing another male that stimulates a desire to want to use their male reproductive organ to get a certain feeling received by dispensing fluid
into the other male that has a function to only accept the function it has to insert into a female's material?”
Pro evinces what he thinks the purpose of the penis is. It is, apparently, to stick in a woman’s vagina and dispense fluid. Why should I take that at face value and agree with that when, among other things, the organ could be used to expunge waste from the body? He can say all he wants about “focusing” this debate on sexual organs, but nothing in the rules compels him to do that and nothing compels me to do that either. The fact that the purpose of an organ changes from person to person should lead us to believe that there is not a universal “function” for a sexual organ.
Furthermore, what of the description and debate topic? It may allude to the fact that you will post something related to “bodily” acceptance, but it never says that I can’t offer my own, competing definition, especially if it is clearer and doesn’t require a contrived formulation like yours which rings meaning each word you use like someone twisting a dirty tank-top until all the sweat drips out.
Ergo, I suggest that we stick to my conventional definition of “accept” for convenience and clarity.
Epicenter
Pro’s summation of the debate is untrue. He determines that this debate should revolve around whether the body “accepts” fornication and nothing else. Or, in his words:
“There are many things that play roles like what somebody wears. We're not talking about what plays in a role, responsibility or duty ***leading*** to sex. The epicenter is sex itself.”
This conflicts with his debatable topic and ruleset.
What was the resolution?
“Nobody is accepting of homosexuality.”
The resolution was not:
“Nobody is accepting of homosexual fornication.”
Homosexuality can encompass more than just penetrative sex. Merriam-Webster defines homosexuality as:
“…sexual or romantic attraction to others of one's same sex: the quality or state of being gay” (1).
Moreover, his own ruleset suggests a broader interpretation of the term “homosexual” too.
“No person accepts homosexuality. That's absolutely no person as in their body accepts homosexual behavior.”
The second sentence clarifies what the first sentence means. At least, that is the reasonable interpretation of the rules. Therefore, this debate is about homosexual “behavior.” Dates, cohabitation, divorce, flirting, and all other activities associated with sex apply. If even one of these behaviors is accepted by a “body,” then I comfortably win this debate. As I’ve shown before, there is a physiological process that activates when someone is aroused or romantically attracted to somebody. Even under my opponent’s strict functionalist view of the body, this means “acceptance.” The body is functioning healthily because it is facilitating relationship-building and “accepts” the advances of another.
That is one reason for dispensing norepinephrine and dopamine.
Under my definition of accept, attracted people “approve of” advances of a prospective, same-sex partner, and thus satisfy my definition of “accept.”
Physiological Role Dichotomy
Pro’s other objection to my case is befuddling. He claims that in a debate that concerns the entire body, we should exclude “intellect” from the discussion.
“I made it very clear of the context and in terms of the physiological sense, not the intellectual sense.”
How do you think intellectual acceptance occurs? Reasoning, acceptance, and a bevy of other factors related to “intellect” stem from brain activity. Neurons transmit information through synapses, points at which one neuron connects to another, to share information (3). In the prefrontal cortex, the center of logical thinking, the strength of neuron connections increases during early adulthood, leading to critical thinking skills. These skills lend themselves to stirring political debate, which some resolve by “accepting” one side of a political discussion or another.
Since Pro views the body as a functionalist mechanism, I contend that the purpose of the brain is to think and react. Higher brain functioning developed in early adulthood can be used to “accept” homosexuals.
As a side note, my opponent thinks he made it clear that intellectual or social acceptance is not what he intended to debate and that the rules explicitly delineated what type of “acceptance” was up for debate. Here is his proof of that:
"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?"
Is this an indication that you are not reading these descriptions when going into debates?
I made it very clear of the context and in terms of the physiological sense, not the intellectual sense. The first round expounded more from the description of the terms and context.
But it's expected that things have to be twisted, flipped around in order to stand correct.”
You made nothing clear. You raised these questions without answering them. That is the opposite of clear. Nothing in the rules precludes these arguments. You just raised a question as to whether “festivities” amounts to “acceptance.” You admit that you “expounded” on this in your 1st round, which sounds like an admission that you didn’t put all the cards on the table in the rules. As I mentioned anyway, the brain is an organ that performs physiological functions like most organs. Socialization, too, is a physiological function because it requires the brain, the mouth, and the neural pathways necessary to make connections and recognize socially accepted behavior, and so on. When social connections are formed, that’s a kind of “acceptance” even under my opponent’s definition because the organs responsible for socialization did their job, and the body is rewarded with dopamine. Under my definition, people can “approve of” their friends and neighbors who are homosexual by using their higher brain functioning. They can also “reject” laws that penalize homosexual behavior with flogging or jail time.
Therefore, extend my sole contention across the entire debate. Whether my opponent wants this debate to be about social acceptance or not, nothing disallows me from using the definition, and Pro has yet to prove why his definition is better.
Revisiting Pro’s Formulation
“"Sperm and an egg are necessary"
These are two different elements. They're two different sexual elements you might as well say.
They have functions of their own within the relationship of the body. A bodily feature produces this element that produces a function. A tiny box inside of a larger box inside of another inside of another , all related.
This bodily element's function does not identify with the function of homosexuality. It would have to reject it in order to retain its own.”
I’m preserving the original formulation here. In simple terms, the body produces an element (sperm or egg) that produces a function (reproduction.) All of my arguments against functionalism apply since divining the purpose of an “element” is impossible. Who is to say that we are “supposed” to reproduce? Who are you to say what the function of sex is? You tried to, anyway.
“Well there's the end goal for sex in and of itself and the end goal or purpose that is an individual measure for the individual.”
There is no goal for sex “in and of itself.” Sex can result in offspring, but it doesn’t always. In fact, as my source used in my first case mentioned, sex was/is often used for favors and to maintain beneficial relationships. In a society that requires social relationships to survive, sex can do a lot to curry favor with others, forming beneficial relationships. I say that prosocial behavior is as much a “function” of sex as producing children.
Aside from that, this argument is still flawed. Just because a body produces sperm, and that sperm cannot create life during homosexual sex does not mean that other organs cannot use their elements to accept homosexuality. A brain’s synapses work together to formulate one’s opinion about same-sex marriage. There. The element is the brain, the function is the thought, maintaining relationships, and accepting homosexuality.
For the record, the idea that an “element” not performing a “function” somehow relates to “acceptance” is absurd, bodily, or otherwise. It is so far removed from any conventional understanding of “accept,” that he squeezed all meaning out of the word.
Confusion
Let’s use Pro’s formulation again to understand what I said at the bottom of my case concerning fecundity and genetic predispositions.
Women who pass on genes that predispose people to be gay tend to have more children. Therefore, the element (the genes) caused the women in question to be more virile and have more babies (the function). The genes played a role in bringing about life that otherwise would not have been born, fulfilling Pro’s “reproductive” function.
In this case, the “element,” the genes, produced life. The element “identified with the function of homosexuality” by producing homosexual offspring. Even if there was some heterosexual sex involved, new life being created by homosexual genes pokes a hole in Pro’s postulation because, as he puts it:
“This bodily element's function does not identify with the function of homosexuality. It would have to reject it in order to retain its own.”
Questions
Pro asks me a bunch of questions, and I think I basically answered them. Under my opponent’s convoluted formulation, the fact that someone can use the physiological function that is their brain to accept homosexuality is indeed a flaw in his argument under his definition and mine. However, I contend that my definition of "social acceptance" still stands pending an actual refutation. The only refutation seemed to be that Pro didn't want to debate about social acceptance, but a topic that someone writes invariably differs from how it is debated. Pending an actual rule discounting my sourced definition as opposed to my opponent's speculative machinations, I propose that mine should be the standard for the debate.
Sources
Round 3
Pro
#5
Now we can get to your points relevant to the topic.
We'll start with the scenario I brought up.
“Can a homosexual male accept kissing another male that stimulates a desire to want to use their male reproductive organ to get a certain feeling received by dispensing fluid
into the other male that has a function to only accept the function it has to insert into a female's material?”
On to your response.
"Pro evinces what he thinks the purpose of the penis is. It is, apparently, to stick in a woman’s vagina and dispense fluid. Why should I take that at face value and agree with that when, among other things, the organ could be used to expunge waste from the body? He can say all he wants about “focusing” this debate on sexual organs, but nothing in the rules compels him to do that and nothing compels me to do that either. The fact that the purpose of an organ changes from person to person should lead us to believe that there is not a universal “function” for a sexual organ.
Furthermore, what of the description and debate topic? It may allude to the fact that you will post something related to “bodily” acceptance, but it never says that I can’t offer my own, competing definition, especially if it is clearer and doesn’t require a contrived formulation like yours which rings meaning each word you use like someone twisting a dirty tank-top until all the sweat drips out."
Maybe I missed something out of this lengthy essay of a response, but it doesn't look like you answered the question.
If I was in your place , I wouldn't have an answer either. It's nothing wrong with just saying that you can't answer that. Better yet, you can say science doesn't have an answer at the moment.
"Ergo, I suggest that we stick to my conventional definition of “accept” for convenience and clarity."
If you want to disregard what I say, although not truthful to do, that's your choice.
It's on record that I went through the effort of explaining things but insatiable none the less.
"Pro’s summation of the debate is untrue. He determines that this debate should revolve around whether the body “accepts” fornication and nothing else. Or, in his words:
“There are many things that play roles like what somebody wears. We're not talking about what plays in a role, responsibility or duty ***leading*** to sex. The epicenter is sex itself.” "
Not correct. You're quoting me and misquoting me at the same time. How dare you?
The epicenter is sex. No where in that quote does it say the body accepts fornication. Nor does the term sex contradict the context of the debate topic. In this whole communication from me has been about the functions of organs related to sex. I can't resist the urge to say "duh".
The point of that response was to invalidate your point about conflating so many things to be sexual erroneously. But you threw a red herring in with the nitpick of language. I think that's the best you have is just to argue, fuss, cry ,whine over language.
"This conflicts with his debatable topic and ruleset.
What was the resolution?
“Nobody is accepting of homosexuality.”
The resolution was not:
“Nobody is accepting of homosexual fornication.”"
You moved the goalpost and tried to pin it on me. You must be a crooked cop .
"Homosexuality can encompass more than just penetrative sex. "
What determines something to be sexual and homosexual?
It would have to relate to sex, would it not?
What makes sex what it is ?
"Moreover, his own ruleset suggests a broader interpretation of the term “homosexual” too."
What exactly wasn't specific enough for you?
"Dates, cohabitation, divorce, flirting, and all other activities associated with sex apply. If even one of these behaviors is accepted by a “body,” then I comfortably win this debate."
There you go conflating again. I ask what is sex? What makes something sexual?
By this logic with you mentioning divorce for example, I can go further saying that talking legality over with a divorce lawyer, signing a legal document applies to sex, that is sex in the context of this debate. There's no end with you doing this and this is a sure enough way to take the confusion out of homosexuality, isn't it? Liberalize , removing the rules, the standards, the foundation.
" If even one of these behaviors is accepted by a “body,” then I comfortably win this debate. As I’ve shown before, there is a physiological process that activates when someone is aroused or romantically attracted to somebody. Even under my opponent’s strict functionalist view of the body, this means “acceptance.” The body is functioning healthily because it is facilitating relationship-building and “accepts” the advances of another."
Accepts the advances for what? Is it a sexual behavior and relationship?
Why don't you get to the finale and center of it all ?
"Under my definition of accept, attracted people “approve of” advances of a prospective, same-sex partner, and thus satisfy my definition of “accept.” "
The problem is you're arguing as if same-sex attraction has no end game function. That's the part you're not filling in. What makes a person physically interested in another to call it sexual?
"Pro’s other objection to my case is befuddling. He claims that in a debate that concerns the entire body, we should exclude “intellect” from the discussion."
This is where you're making the mistake . Absolutely nowhere have I said the debate concerns the entire body. I've said what is in relationship to the body. Big difference there, you stand corrected there.
"How do you think intellectual acceptance occurs? Reasoning, acceptance, and a bevy of other factors related to “intellect” stem from brain activity. Neurons transmit information through synapses, points at which one neuron connects to another, to share information (3). In the prefrontal cortex, the center of logical thinking, the strength of neuron connections increases during early adulthood, leading to critical thinking skills. These skills lend themselves to stirring political debate, which some resolve by “accepting” one side of a political discussion or another."
So in other words , you trying to say that this is a part of what I'm saying, it is physiological as well. I'm going to get to this in summary what appears you haven't noticed . I'll get to that later.
But the context has been about the functions separate from the mind.
"Since Pro views the body as a functionalist mechanism, I contend that the purpose of the brain is to think and react. Higher brain functioning developed in early adulthood can be used to “accept” homosexuals."
So you're point now is that of the mind, of the body, a physiological process allows the faculties to rationalize a decision to accept homosexuality, all there of.
Correct what I've said if incorrect.
"You made nothing clear. You raised these questions without answering them. That is the opposite of clear. Nothing in the rules precludes these arguments. "
If nothing was clear.......
why did you accept a debate challenge that wasn't clear?
Did you not read the first round?
The first round makes it quite clear what the context is.
"You admit that you “expounded” on this in your 1st round, which sounds like an admission that you didn’t put all the cards on the table in the rules. "
I don't know where I said what the "rules" were. I understand you see language, deciding yourself to call them rules . The description describes the debate but it doesn't necessarily contain my arguments unless I, not you, unless I say so.
You were so sure that the description had my arguments and you were trying to argue based on that. Then when I put the arguments and a more detailed context in at the start of this thing, it was way more than you can handle and bargained for.
"As I mentioned anyway, the brain is an organ that performs physiological functions like most organs. Socialization, too, is a physiological function because it requires the brain, the mouth, and the neural pathways necessary to make connections and recognize socially accepted behavior, and so on. When social connections are formed, that’s a kind of “acceptance” even under my opponent’s definition because the organs responsible for socialization did their job, and the body is rewarded with dopamine. Under my definition, people can “approve of” their friends and neighbors who are homosexual by using their higher brain functioning. They can also “reject” laws that penalize homosexual behavior with flogging or jail time."
So far I can say, no body accepts homosexuality due to the bodily parts related to the body .
You can say there are bodies they do accept homosexuality due to the bodily parts related to the body.
We're both are correct based on our specific contexts. Isn't so?
But you're task was to show I'm wrong. It does no service for both of us being right then you say you won. I have to be wrong regardless. That's one facet of it but, I'll show where you've made a misstep in what you've said if you haven't caught it yet.
"Therefore, extend my sole contention across the entire debate. Whether my opponent wants this debate to be about social acceptance or not, nothing disallows me from using the definition, and Pro has yet to prove why his definition is better."
In the previous response, I just showed where we're at basically. At the very most, you can just say you're side is not wrong either using the very same or similar basis.
Which doesn't invalidate my side. You can't invalidate my side by saying "Well I'm right too."
"All of my arguments against functionalism apply since divining the purpose of an “element” is impossible. Who is to say that we are “supposed” to reproduce? Who are you to say what the function of sex is? You tried to, anyway."
I am a human saying only what the human body is saying. Who are you to say what the function of the brain is? Who is to say it is supposed to be used to store information, rationalize, analyze, etc? If we behave erratically with clouded judgment by way of liquor or flooded with emotion, who are you to say the way it should be?
We can toxify, kill brain cells, damage parts of our neurological capacity but that's neither here nor there. Don't go there my friend. You know you observe the functions of the body and learn their roles. That's why you were preaching all that biological information about the mind. You're picking and choosing.
Now I'm not picking and choosing and I'll show you why in just a bit.
"There is no goal for sex “in and of itself.” Sex can result in offspring, but it doesn’t always. In fact, as my source used in my first case mentioned, sex was/is often used for favors and to maintain beneficial relationships. In a society that requires social relationships to survive, sex can do a lot to curry favor with others, forming beneficial relationships. I say that prosocial behavior is as much a “function” of sex as producing children."
Are you saying that sex has multiple end goals in and of itself or are you saying some functions in our bodies have no goal designed within them incidentally?
"Aside from that, this argument is still flawed. Just because a body produces sperm, and that sperm cannot create life during homosexual sex does not mean that other organs cannot use their elements to accept homosexuality. "
Sounds like a conflict here. I'll get to that in a moment.
"For the record, the idea that an “element” not performing a “function” somehow relates to “acceptance” is absurd, bodily, or otherwise. It is so far removed from any conventional understanding of “accept,” that he squeezed all meaning out of the word."
But nonetheless true. Otherwise you're point wouldn't be made about the mind's physiological participation.
"Even if there was some heterosexual sex involved, new life being created by homosexual genes pokes a hole in Pro’s postulation because, as he puts it:
“This bodily element's function does not identify with the function of homosexuality. It would have to reject it in order to retain its own.” "
I think you're saying homosexuality can detour itself to use heterosexuality for the function of life reproduction.
I think many of us know this.
"Under my opponent’s convoluted formulation, the fact that someone can use the physiological function that is their brain to accept homosexuality is indeed a flaw in his argument under his definition and mine."
Flawed you say, I thought we can agree that the bodily function of the mind demonstrates how the body accepts homosexuality. Are you quitting on that argument?
Ok so I think you missed some questions .
One particularly, this one :
"This is to say their brain is a physiological process , bodily part making their body or person accept homosexuality, is that right?"
Ok so here it is in summary. This is like a move you put forward in the chess match you thought was correct but unbeknownst to you was just a setup into a trap.
Now I say the body that contains bodily parts that contain a function don't fit the function of another that has a different "mission". If the mission is opposing, opposite or different, not the same, it's a mission that hasn't been accepted to complete.
You say the body that contains at least one bodily feature that contains its function fits the function of another that's the same .
Let me add that it's the same but different from the mission assigned to another part attached to the body.
That's total conflict within the body. The conflict is in the opposition that makes the difference that doesn't make it all agreeable with the body. There is no agreement in rejection.
So not only does the body reject homosexuality on the outside, from what you've added( the mind of homosexuality inside), the body is in disharmony or rejection within rejecting itself.
That's checkmate.
Con
#6
I’m going to summarize this hurricane-sized clutter to the best of my ability and show why Con wins.
Definitions
“Accept” is the linchpin of this debate, which is something that Con admits in the description that he now disavows as a ruleset.
I guess it comes down to what's meant by "accept" or "reject".
I offered a clear definition at the beginning of my first round. “Accept,” in common parlance, can take on many meanings, but the one I chose meant “approve of.” Favor this definition for the following reasons.
1) My opponent never offered an explicit definition that didn’t require industrial lifting equipment to unpack.
2) He uses two entirely different definitions (one related to the “disharmony” in a body and one related to the functions being performed by a “bodily part.”
3) His description mentioned “homosexual behavior” which can run the gamut of kissing, dating, cohabitation, breaking up, etc. The component of the body most apt to
“accepting behavior” is the brain, which dispenses hormones, performs critical thinking about society, and can turn down or accept the advances of a homosexual partner.
Pro asks that “homosexuality” and “sexual” be defined. You and I already went through this. Here is my definition of homosexuality which has gone uncontested.
“…sexual or romantic attraction to others of one's same sex: the quality or state of being gay.”
Here’s your definition of sexual, which I did not contest:
"relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals."
I don’t see how going down this well-trodden path will help either of us, but those are the definitions.
My Logical Proof
As a reminder, my postulation was simply this:
The brain, being capable of critical thinking about homosexuality in society, can “accept” homosexual peers. In addition, people can “accept” the advances of same-sex partners as proven by the brain pumping norepinephrine and dopamine through homosexuals’ bodies when they feel aroused.
Pro’s Logical Proof
The sperm cannot identify with homosexuality because it cannot produce children with a homosexual, ergo, the sperm, and thus us, the product of the sperm, must reject homosexuality.
My Rebuttals Thus Far
a. My proof necessarily contradicts Con’s
The brain, the organ central to reasoning, is capable of accepting homosexuality. Even assuming that Pro’s formulation makes sense (which it doesn’t) I proved that a body can accept homosexuality using my definition of “accept.” The formulation works under Pro’s stipulations too. What is the element? The brain. What is the function? Logical reasoning drives people to “accept” their homosexual peers instead of castigating them. If even 1 body accepts homosexuality, the claim that “Nobody accepts homosexuality” cannot be true.
b. Functionalism’s flaws
Pro has this habit of presupposing purposes for organs, but he doesn’t justify any of them. In fact, his formulation depends on whether the purpose of “sex” is reproduction. Pro goes to lengths trying to explain that each “bodily part” has an “element” with a “function” and “mission,” but he misses the forest for the approaching horde of lumberjacks severing the roots of his argument.
Sex has no ultimate function; it has no endgame. As I’ve mentioned before, sex can foster social relationships. How is that not the ultimate function? What if people just have sex because it feels good? What makes Pro the arbiter of what mission or function is assigned to which body part?
c. Non-sequiturs
This is Pro’s argument:
One “element” of a body part, the sperm, cannot identify with heterosexuality because it cannot form children through homosexual means. Ergo, the body rejects homosexuality.
The juncture between the last 2 sentences is important. Why does the body “reject” homosexuality outright when other organs can accept it? If you buy that the brain can accept homosexuality, then why does it matter that the sperm cannot form a baby? Is forming a baby a type of acceptance? Why is abstinence tantamount to rejection?
The conclusion does not follow the preceding claim.
d. Homosexuality does create life
If you’re still not convinced, consider how genes that predispose people to homosexuality are usually passed on to children from fecund mothers. Homosexuality, in part, did lead to new life, so the egg did “identify with homosexuality.”
My opponent’s newest responses
a. Question at top of the case
Pro surmises that he asked a damning question that sunk my case. I actually don’t know that for sure, but given the bravado he used, he seemed attached to his question, which was:
“Can a homosexual male accept kissing another male that stimulates a desire to want to use their male reproductive organ to get a certain feeling received by dispensing fluid
into the other male that has a function to only accept the function it has to insert into a female's material?”
Of course, I did answer this question. The question is flawed from its preconception because it depends on the idea of “ultimate functions,” that the destiny of every penis on Earth is to end up nestled in someone else’s birth canal. This is an inaccurate portrayal of the body. There really are no ultimate functions. The function of the gonads differs from person to person, so saying that there is an “endgame” of sex is reductive and inaccurate.
It doesn’t pertain to the topic much anyway.
b. Epicenter Revisited
Pro is trying to get a lot of mileage out of nothing here. He rails against the definition of “homosexuality” because it isn’t narrow enough for his liking. The same is true of the definition he offered, which was:
"relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals."
Insofar as we are talking about homosexuality, the fact that divorce proceedings are included should be no surprise. Pro has festooned this debate with sex and forgot that, at the center of things, homosexuality has little to do with doing the deed. Sex may be part of it, but it isn’t all of it.
c. Contexts
I usually summarize, but this surprisingly lucid statement caught me off guard. It’s actually a couple of statements, but I’ll start with the one that I found funnier first.
“The first round makes it quite clear what the context is.”
“But the context has been about the functions separate from the mind.”
“I don't know where I said what the "rules" were. I understand you see language, deciding yourself to call them rules . The description describes the debate but it doesn't necessarily contain my arguments unless I, not you, unless I say so.”
It should be fine for me to operate outside of Pro’s context if you decided not to include any rules. Therefore, I contend that the mind should be included in the debate regardless of Pro’s chosen “context.”
Here’s the other series of statements.
“So far I can say, no body accepts homosexuality due to the bodily parts related to the body .
You can say there are bodies they do accept homosexuality due to the bodily parts related to the body.
We're both are correct based on our specific contexts. Isn't so?”
“But you're task was to show I'm wrong. It does no service for both of us being right then you say you won. I have to be wrong regardless. That's one facet of it but, I'll show where you've made a misstep in what you've said if you haven't caught it yet.”
These are the lucid statements. They are pieces of flotsam that I will grip with all my strength in this turbulent sea of hogwash.
If Pro never specified what the rules of the debate are, I’m not beholden to any context. All I have to do is disprove the topic statement, and I did that. People can accept homosexuality using their brain, therefore, at least 1 “body” can accept homosexuality. The statement that “Nobody can accept homosexuality” is a prima facie illogical statement.
If Pro is suggesting that the first-round post is the “rules,” then he needed to actually lay down the rules. He didn’t. Nowhere in his first case did he say that arguments outside his narrowly conceived postulation were non-topical.
If even Pro recognizes that I am winning in my “context,” then it should be clear what that means for the topic sentence. It is negated.
d. Cherry Picking
Pro believes that I cherry-picked the “functions” of the brain. Nope. I pointed out that there are many tasks a brain can do. I never claimed there was an “endgame” for thinking as you proclaim there to be an “endgame” for sex.
e. Entire Body
Supposedly, nowhere in the debate did Pro mention that he was referring to the “whole” body. Presumably, someone else wrote the resolution for Pro. That would explain why it seems like we’re 2 ships passing in the night. Here’s not what the resolution says:
“No more than half-a-body can accept homosexuality.”
Here’s what the resolution says:
“Nobody is accepting of homosexuality.”
You came up with the premise, you get to defend it. If the mind is capable of accepting homosexuality, then that pokes a hole in your argument.
f. Pro’s Purported Checkmate
Pro purports that each component of the body has an “element,” a “function,” and a “mission” (which is apparently different from the function.) I don’t see how the contradiction between different functions or missions impedes the ability of somebody to accept homosexuality, but Pro begs to differ. The reason? Apparently, when an organ is assigned a mission that “goes against” or “contradicts” the mission of other organs, there is “internal disharmony” which is equivalent to rejection.
I’m going to need some clarity here. Pro, what is your metric for determining whether something is “accepted?” I don’t remember any previous argument suggesting that the definition of “accept” had anything to do with “internal harmony amongst the multifarious missions assigned at random to organs by Pro’s whim.” The argument I do remember was this:
“This bodily element's function does not identify with the function of homosexuality.”
So, is it the “identity” of an element’s function that determines homosexuality? If so, I got thoughts for days coming from my element (the brain) that identify perfectly well with homosexual acceptance.
For someone who decries internal disunity, Pro’s case seems to operate entirely on inconsistency and word salad. I’ve seen more harmonious natural disasters. Furthermore, you don’t so much move the goalposts as you prop it up on wheels, oscillating between different definitions with capricious unpredictability. It’s as if you are constructing a ladder while climbing it.
In any case, if my opponent recognizes that a single organ can identify with “homosexuality,” I don’t see why this new version of “acceptance” should be… well… accepted.
Since this new formulation depends on the new form of "accept" being accepted, this rebuttal falls at the first hurdle.
Round 4
Pro
#7
"1) My opponent never offered an explicit definition that didn’t require industrial lifting equipment to unpack.
2) He uses two entirely different definitions (one related to the “disharmony” in a body and one related to the functions being performed by a “bodily part.” "
Basically you haven't understood what I've said. I understand, this is a very detailed topic.
"3) His description mentioned “homosexual behavior” which can run the gamut of kissing, dating, cohabitation, breaking up, etc. The component of the body most apt to
“accepting behavior” is the brain, which dispenses hormones, performs critical thinking about society, and can turn down or accept the advances of a homosexual partner."
Yes, it's the physiological participation from the body to engage it in homosexuality. I understand your position. Do you believe it when I say that ?
Now the conflation thing, I guess you're ignoring my point on that. I don't see you refuting it still.
Instead of refuting it because it's irrefutable, you just repeat your point, it's understood.
"Pro asks that “homosexuality” and “sexual” be defined. You and I already went through this. Here is my definition of homosexuality which has gone uncontested.
“…sexual or romantic attraction to others of one's same sex: the quality or state of being gay.” "
I don't contest definitions. Maybe you do in not seeing the sense in doing so.
I don't argue a definition . Why? Words and definitions are nothing but forms of communication. I'm not arguing how you're communicating. The whole point of a definition is to understand what you mean when you say something. That's it, move on to whatever point you're trying to make.
"Here’s your definition of sexual, which I did not contest:
"relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals."
I don’t see how going down this well-trodden path will help either of us, but those are the definitions."
I do not own google. This isn't my definition I put together. You guys , you just don't bother to follow all that I say.
Only thing that these definitions help with is to understand what each other is saying.
"The brain, being capable of critical thinking about homosexuality in society, can “accept” homosexual peers. In addition, people can “accept” the advances of same-sex partners as proven by the brain pumping norepinephrine and dopamine through homosexuals’ bodies when they feel aroused."
Your point again, the body accepting homosexuality based on the bodily part's function of acceptance.
"The sperm cannot identify with homosexuality because it cannot produce children with a homosexual, ergo, the sperm, and thus us, the product of the sperm, must reject homosexuality."
Not quite. The function of the sexual reproductive organ doesn't identify or have a nature of homosexuality, therefore rejecting it.
The result of children is not really the basis. We can just observe the nature of the bodily part's function as you do with the brain hence you can say rejecting heterosexuality.
A homosexual is not a heterosexual, isn't it so?
"a. My proof necessarily contradicts Con’s
The brain, the organ central to reasoning, is capable of accepting homosexuality. Even assuming that Pro’s formulation makes sense (which it doesn’t) I proved that a body can accept homosexuality using my definition of “accept.” The formulation works under Pro’s stipulations too. What is the element? The brain. What is the function? Logical reasoning drives people to “accept” their homosexual peers instead of castigating them. If even 1 body accepts homosexuality, the claim that “Nobody accepts homosexuality” cannot be true."
You said the key word " contradict ". That is what makes the topic statement true.
There is no acceptance in contradiction. Neither side accepts to agree with one another.
You said my side doesn't make sense. You do know you're speaking of the human anatomy, our bodies. You know it has certain functions, you know that's true. Don't try to ignore it now. I don't ignore what you say. I accept what you say . It only gives credence to what I say. That's why it doesn't make sense to you . It's confusing to examine the human body having conflicts like this. You have never looked at this honestly before. Don't be delusional about it. Just face it head on.
"Pro has this habit of presupposing purposes for organs, but he doesn’t justify any of them."
I think this is more delusion. Are you really saying that the functions of the body that I mentioned are made up ? Am I presuming these functions are real?
Come on, are you being honest ?
"In fact, his formulation depends on whether the purpose of “sex” is reproduction."
I don't know what else to call this but strawmanning. I have not , have not made arguments for the purpose of sex.
I specifically raised facts about the functions of specific organs.
"Pro goes to lengths trying to explain that each “bodily part” has an “element” with a “function” and “mission,” but he misses the forest for the approaching horde of lumberjacks severing the roots of his argument."
You people are something else. Do you want explanations or not ? You whine when nothing is explained well to you. You have a problem when something is elaborated in detail. Insatiable, can't ever satisfy or suffice , whatever it is .
"Sex has no ultimate function; it has no endgame. "
This is literally saying sex has no purpose. Anything that has purpose has an endgame.
This is the slippery slope. Trying to make a blank criteria, standard, foundation, making it fluid having no grounds for deviancy. Then what do you with what's left? You conflate as you have no foundational definition and or function for sex other than what you can make up . Then you have no defining line on what makes something sexual.
You try to accomplish this by saying that certain functions are presupposed like they're questioned to even exist outside someone's mind. This is where the lies and confusion start.
"As I’ve mentioned before, sex can foster social relationships. How is that not the ultimate function? What if people just have sex because it feels good? "
How is it not the ultimate function?
Well this debate has never been about the purpose of sex . That's what you keep confusing with what I'm saying . You see the terms "sexual reproduction organs" and read more into than what's necessary. I never made a case about the result of offspring being a verification of the topic statement. You're presupposing this and you're turning this into sex being a freedom of individual expression. I think this is all you have to try to make homosexuality make sense. But it's not about making sense of homosexuality or defending it.
I specifically, specifically , specifically discussed the biological, physiological make-up of our bodies that you accuse is being presupposed. What in the world is that?
What if people have sex "just to feel good" ? So that's supposed to make everything consistent I guess. I'm not arguing about people's purposes for sex.
I think you're totally lost on where we're at.
"What makes Pro the arbiter of what mission or function is assigned to which body part?"
It's the same "what" that makes you arbiter over the body part and function you broached. So right back at you.
"This is Pro’s argument:
One “element” of a body part, the sperm, cannot identify with heterosexuality because it cannot form children through homosexual means. Ergo, the body rejects homosexuality."
I don't think this is super complicated, do you?
I think you made a typo there where you said heterosexuality.
"The juncture between the last 2 sentences is important. Why does the body “reject” homosexuality outright when other organs can accept it? "
That's a damn good question. What is the conflict in the human body about?
Too bad the answer to that question is a topic for another day most likely with somebody else.
"If you buy that the brain can accept homosexuality, then why does it matter that the sperm cannot form a baby? "
Non-accceptance has nothing to do solely with resulting of an offspring.
"Is forming a baby a type of acceptance?"
It could be but not necessarily the basis . Why? Heterosexuality doesn't always result in offspring. But the nature of the bodily element doesn't reject itself. This is why if you bother to notice, I never specifically said not having children is an indication to make the topic statement true.
"Why is abstinence tantamount to rejection?"
Don't get the question but my points should be clear after all this time.
"The conclusion does not follow the preceding claim."
That's because you have the points incorrect.
"Homosexuality does create life"
Two same sex people have homosexual sex cannot create life as in sexual reproduction.
"The question is flawed from its preconception because it depends on the idea of “ultimate functions,” that the destiny of every penis on Earth is to end up nestled in someone else’s birth canal. "
Then you really don't understand the design of the male reproductive system and to try to explain that to you at this stage and time, you should of just passed on this debate challenge.
"This is an inaccurate portrayal of the body. There really are no ultimate functions. The function of the gonads differs from person to person, so saying that there is an “endgame” of sex is reductive and inaccurate."
What is it like to dismiss the functions and structures of our bodies ?
By this logic our brains have no function or end result of a function. Each person has a different personality. Don't try to observe universal factors.
"It doesn’t pertain to the topic much anyway."
Excuse me, sexual reproductive organs don't have anything to do with homosexuality, are you sure?
"Pro is trying to get a lot of mileage out of nothing here. He rails against the definition of “homosexuality” because it isn’t narrow enough for his liking. "
You can have your definitions. Do what you will with them. I got you at checkmate, game is over.
"Insofar as we are talking about homosexuality, the fact that divorce proceedings are included should be no surprise. Pro has festooned this debate with sex and forgot that, at the center of things, homosexuality has little to do with doing the deed. Sex may be part of it, but it isn’t all of it."
As long as you conflate, sex to you is any and every damn thing.
"People can accept homosexuality using their brain, therefore, at least 1 “body” can accept homosexuality. The statement that “Nobody can accept homosexuality” is a prima facie illogical statement."
A lot of things I went over from your responses are just a waste of time and nonsense.
I got you at checkmate.
"If Pro is suggesting that the first-round post is the “rules,” then he needed to actually lay down the rules. He didn’t. Nowhere in his first case did he say that arguments outside his narrowly conceived postulation were non-topical."
Excuse me, is the topic statement true or not? The hell with all this other nonsense because that's where it belongs.
"If even Pro recognizes that I am winning in my “context,” then it should be clear what that means for the topic sentence. It is negated."
You're using the same basis I'm using which contradicts my stance. But I agree that we're both in factual places. So because of that , these two different factual sides cannot agree with each other.
That's where I make the checkmate.
"Pro believes that I cherry-picked the “functions” of the brain. Nope. I pointed out that there are many tasks a brain can do. I never claimed there was an “endgame” for thinking as you proclaim there to be an “endgame” for sex."
Functions are in the endgame. That is what a function is . Are you really trying to tell us there is no result of a function? We identify a function based off the effect it has like the brain's function of memory. The end result is us retaining information.
"Supposedly, nowhere in the debate did Pro mention that he was referring to the “whole” body. Presumably, someone else wrote the resolution for Pro. That would explain why it seems like we’re 2 ships passing in the night. Here’s not what the resolution says:
“No more than half-a-body can accept homosexuality.” "
Does it say the whole body? What point are you trying to make?
"You came up with the premise, you get to defend it. If the mind is capable of accepting homosexuality, then that pokes a hole in your argument."
I got you at checkmate comrade.
"Pro purports that each component of the body has an “element,” a “function,” and a “mission” (which is apparently different from the function.) "
No, wrong, you are not understanding what I'm saying. Apparently so, this topic is too detailed and in depth for you. A mission is a term used just in another way of me referring to function. Like the work or function of a platoon is to take down the enemy. That's the mission.
The bottom line is , I got you at checkmate.
"I don’t see how the contradiction between different functions or missions impedes the ability of somebody to accept homosexuality, but Pro begs to differ. The reason? Apparently, when an organ is assigned a mission that “goes against” or “contradicts” the mission of other organs, there is “internal disharmony” which is equivalent to rejection."
When things reject each other, there is no harmony, is it not? When the puzzle pieces don't fit, there's a rejection of fitting together, you don't get a whole puzzle that would be united of pieces. You have to know that's not harmonic.
"I’m going to need some clarity here. Pro, what is your metric for determining whether something is “accepted?” "
Just look back at the previous response. It gets right down to the basic understanding of acceptance. In acceptance there is agreement, harmony, no opposition , no difference to contradict, is it not so?
"I don’t remember any previous argument suggesting that the definition of “accept” had anything to do with “internal harmony amongst the multifarious missions assigned at random to organs by Pro’s whim.” "
Well damn, can we get straight of what we're talking about here? Is acceptance not about agreement?
If I say I don't accept violence and I say I accept the non-violenct lifestyle but then go do as not to what I say, I'm in complete contradiction. I say I refuse to do physical violence but I don't refuse to do physical violence.
There is no acceptance of the non-violent lifestyle.
"The argument I do remember was this:
“This bodily element's function does not identify with the function of homosexuality.”
"So, is it the “identity” of an element’s function that determines homosexuality? "
I don't think I said anything about what determines what unless you want to pull an exact quote.
I did state the fact right there that the element that has a nature to link with a different element wouldn't agree with the nature of homosexuality. Why? Homosexuality has to do with individuals that carry the same element. That's the point of the "homo" prefix.
The same ingredient that does what it does. Not the same DNA code in case people take the wrong path to that train of thought .
"If so, I got thoughts for days coming from my element (the brain) that identify perfectly well with homosexual acceptance".
Very well so your position is that bodily part that accepts this thing is the body's acceptance of it.
Right , that's how I made the checkmate. Much gratitude to you on that. The way you put it made my case even easier basically.
"Furthermore, you don’t so much move the goalposts as you prop it up on wheels, oscillating between different definitions with capricious unpredictability. It’s as if you are constructing a ladder while climbing it."
You're exactly right about me not moving goalposts. I agree because that's pointless. The truth is the truth regardless of you or anyone resisting it.
"In any case, if my opponent recognizes that a single organ can identify with “homosexuality,” I don’t see why this new version of “acceptance” should be… well… accepted."
This is funny but I don't expect you to concede to the truth of the topic statement.
Trying to pretend that the word acceptance never had anything to do with agreement until now is like saying the english language wasn't what it was, wasn't discovered until now.
"Since this new formulation depends on the new form of "accept" being accepted, this rebuttal falls at the first hurdle."
In other words you weren't prepared for this rebuttal. You didn't see it coming. But you brought it on. You brought up the brain, what am I suppose to do in a debate, not bring up the rebuttal?
I only brought up whatever validity to combat your point. Now that you got it , I guess all you can do is repeat the point about the body accepting something by way of one bodily part accepting. I don't disagree with that or do you not understand that. I'll give you that, your right.
But the brain controlling another part of the body that spits out an element that has a structure to it to fit a specific structure controls it to go else where, where it doesn't fit. It's like fitting non-harmonious puzzle pieces together. That in itself is rejecting in nature as well as the network between the two parts of the body. Both aren't on one accord, aren't agreeable in that manner, rejecting each other's itinerary to a route of destination, not accepting each other's function as is according to their individual structures.
To put it in straightforward perspective, a homosexual man that has equipment to impregnate a woman is being directed by his mind to impregnate a man . Regardless to the consciousness, the physiological role is still in place and has not gone to reject itself to accept something else or some other role.
It still has the same role to impregnate regardless of gender but the mind of the homosexual man will still have mental stimulation to arouse the equipment to do what is contrary because the desire is from same sex attraction.
Between the body parts, there is conflict. In conflict, there is condradiction, there is no agreement, no acceptance. You have one part of the body at least going against another over sexuality.
Let's look at an illustration of a child who has decided to accept something from somebody. At that very decision to accept, the parent steps in and rejects that something. The child's acceptance was negated because something is going on the contrary , going against that what was to be accepted interfering in that manner.
Like trying to get up a slippery wall, your mind is made up but it is rejected by gravity working against your effort. The reality or natural laws do not accept and allow you to get up that wall .
A forceful one accepting to force themselves on to another that does not consent or agree to it does not make the act accepted. It has to be totally agreeable.
You can be determined, accept to allow incompatible puzzle pieces to falsely assemble. There is no agreement, unified acceptance of a complete puzzle.
A homosexual male can be determined, accept to allow their body to engage in the use of their sexual parts/pieces with the same sex. There is no agreement or acceptance of that use disengaging the physiological role which is of heterosexual function.
To be in agreement, the body could of been designed when it comes to that part of it to not still act as though it's contacting the opposite sex.
Con
#8
I was initially going to go through the long task of refuting each point that my opponent has stated thus far, but it doesn’t seem that he disagrees with me. Little is said of my points and he keeps on repeating his ideas on the “nature” of bodily parts, elements, missions, etc. I’ll only go over refutations if there is anything worth mentioning. I haven’t combed over his case at the time of writing, but there is presumably something of value to refute. If not, I’ll just go right into summary.
Ok. I’m back now. 10 minutes later, and I think it would be best just to go to summary and get this over with. There is nothing he brought up that added much to the debate. If I literally just repeated my previous arguments and barely acknowledged his new case, it’ll be fine.
What has my opponent done in this debate?
This is a difficult question because I am just tempted to type: “he made a mess with a word processor” and be done with it. He proposes his own definition of “bodily acceptance,” which entails looking at a bodily function and its “missions,” “functions,” and “elements.” His claim, in short, is this:
The sperm does not possess a “homosexual nature.”
He tries to clarify this last round but clarifying the distinction between “identity” and “nature” is immaterial. The point, as any sane person would understand, is that sperm needs to fuse with an ovum to create offspring. Because this cannot happen with 2 sperms or 2 eggs, the sex cell does not “identify” with homosexuality.
How have I responded
a. Functionalism
Honestly, this is a retread, but he continues to struggle with this. He paradoxically claims that he proposes no “ultimate function” for sex and asserts that there is an “endgame” for sex. An endgame, mind you, that he determined is reproduction.
In his final round, he said:
“I don't know what else to call this but strawmanning. I have not , have not made arguments for the purpose of sex”
And
“This is literally saying sex has no purpose. Anything that has purpose has an endgame.”
And
“How is it not the ultimate function?”
So, which is it? Are you proposing that there is an ultimate purpose? To be clear, that wouldn’t necessarily be a problem. I’ve already shown that sex can achieve many different goals. But, to say that there is one purpose that trumps all (be it reproduction, fostering pro-social behavior, or pleasure) is reductive and false. There is no “endgame.” There is no singular purpose, and my opponent’s insistence otherwise is not helping his case.
As for why this argument still matters in the debate, consider Pro’s formulation. If there is no “endgame” for sex, why should we weigh the “acceptance” of homosexuality on his presupposed function he assigns to sperm, the penis, et cetera? We shouldn’t, yet his entire case rests on his “functions.” Best case scenario for Pro, there are specific functions that can accept homosexuality. Norepinephrine and dopamine can be dispensed by the brain irrespective of gender. Therefore, a body can accept homosexuality.
b. Definitions
I don’t think I need to continue harping on this, but he admitted in his last round that he doesn’t contest definitions. If Pro is comfortable accepting my definition of “accept,” which was “approve of,” then he loses this debate. If “bodies,” are capable of approving of homosexuality, a given since people are capable of accepting their brain and communicating their thoughts, then it contradicts the resolution:
“Nobody is accepting of homosexuality.”
I accept homosexuality, Danielle accepts homosexuality, and a good portion of the world accepts homosexuality.
There are a few key reasons why my definition should be preferred that have remained unrefuted.
“1) My opponent never offered an explicit definition that didn’t require industrial lifting equipment to unpack.
2) He uses two entirely different definitions (one related to the “disharmony” in a body and one related to the functions being performed by a “bodily part.”
3) His description mentioned “homosexual behavior” which can run the gamut of kissing, dating, cohabitation, breaking up, etc. The component of the body most apt to
“accepting behavior” is the brain, which dispenses hormones, performs critical thinking about society, and can turn down or accept the advances of a homosexual partner.”
I also mentioned how my opponent seems to be using 2 versions of the word “accept.” In his constructive, he stated:
“This bodily element's function does not identify with the function of homosexuality.”
In other words, acceptance had to do with the “identity” of an element’s function. It’s contrived as hell, but whatever. The issue came in the round preceding the last one when he starts talking about contradicting missions in the body and “internal disharmony.” In his last round, he defined acceptance as “agreement.” So, if my opponent wants to prop up multiple definitions and oscillate between them, I argue that my clear-cut definition adds some grounding to this otherwise Katrina-sized disaster.
Extend my argument concerning romantic attraction and acceptance of homosexuality as a result of past measures meant to discriminate against homosexuals.
c. Homosexuality’s role in creating life
As it turns out, genes passed down to children that predispose them to homosexuality tend to come from fecund mothers. In other words, the sperm and egg that someone originates from “identifies” or has the “nature” of homosexuality. Even if 2 sperm cannot create life, Pro stresses the importance of the “nature” of a body’s elements, (i.e. sperm) which carries a genetic code. If that genetic code does carry genetic information that makes someone more likely to be homosexual, then:
“This bodily element's function” does identify with homosexuality.
He suggests that this factoid is meaningless and that at its core, it’s heterosexuality that creates life. However, the “identity” of the “element’s function,” that is, the sperm, is the critical factor of deciding whether that function “identifies with homosexuality” according to his R1. It obviously does. It carries genetic information that predisposes someone to homosexuality.
d. Organs can accept homosexuality
I possess a brain. I can use that brain to accept homosexuality. Just because my opponent wants to exclude the “mind” from this debate does not mean that it needs to be excluded. What he is trying to do is contrive a formulation that would preclude other arguments. I call B.S. Just because you invented a proof that suggests sperm might not accept homosexuality (assuming that you don’t buy my above argument,) the mind can and does. Per my definition, which I contend is superior, a body can accept homosexuality using its magnificent mind.
e. Checkmate?
With much hubris, Pro claims victory halfway into the debate because of… well… I’m just going to paste it.
“Now I say the body that contains bodily parts that contain a function don't fit the function of another that has a different "mission". If the mission is opposing, opposite or different, not the same, it's a mission that hasn't been accepted to complete.
You say the body that contains at least one bodily feature that contains its function fits the function of another that's the same .
Let me add that it's the same but different from the mission assigned to another part attached to the body.
That's total conflict within the body. The conflict is in the opposition that makes the difference that doesn't make it all agreeable with the body. There is no agreement in rejection.
So not only does the body reject homosexuality on the outside, from what you've added( the mind of homosexuality inside), the body is in disharmony or rejection within rejecting itself.”
As I’ve mentioned before, he is changing the parameters that we weigh this debate with. It’s important that all plans, definitions, postulations, etc. are clarified at the beginning of the debate so that the debate is clear to the judges. Now, for some reason, acceptance means harmony within the body. Insofar as “agreement” is the new definition of “acceptance,” something he talks about in his latest round, I must say this:
I agree with homosexuality. There.
Jokes aside, I ask that the judges not honor this last-minute definition change. He is propping his burden upon wheels and changing it at a whim to avoid any attacks on his premise, which was admittedly half-baked to being with. In fact, he never contests the demonstrated fact that he changed the definitions. He must agree with me.
Takeaways
He doesn’t contest my definition of "accept" and agrees that my formulation, that people can accept homosexuality using their brain, is true. At least one “body” accepts homosexuality. You can literally just vote off that.
Pro keeps on changing definitions to match new arguments. Not only is this bad form, but it’s also a reason to accept my conventional definition.
Just a quick aside
“I think you made a typo there where you said heterosexuality.”
I implore the judges to look at Pro’s case and determine if he has the right to lecture me on typos.
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:
Enough said... Kidding.
Con was easily able to prove that the body is accepting of homosexuals via experiencing homosexual attraction. Pro attempted to argue gay sperm, but con showed a genetic component to gayness which invalidated this notion via showing it lead to more reproductive success!
Sources
20 to 0, not to mention that source on gay genes being better at making babies.
S&G
20k characters, and pro offered no distinctive section breaks, or any other formatting to ease readability. Whereas con put in efforts to make his case easy to follow. The mess pro chose to create, left me reading the debate using a word finder for key phrases carried between rounds.
Blamonkey stats
Eloquence 100
Speech 100
Knowledge 100
Mall stats
Confusion 100
I mean - same
lol well I am Here for it :)
I think Blamonkey is trying to make a statement now, lol
again? do try to use simpler language if you're trying to inform Mall. He didn't seem to understand your complex constructive the last time.
Lol saying "no body is accepting of homosexuality" to make some dumb ass point about how BODIES are not "accepting" of homosexuality is pathologically stupid and also false. My female body is perfectly accepting of sexual activity with other female bodies. And my mind, being inextricable from my body (brain) also accepts homosexuality. This is an incredibly useless topic that nobody will accept to debate because it's low hanging fruit that's too easy to win, based on some really poor and weak attempt at playing semantics. Yawn.
I do agree with you guys when something is non-controversial. It's just the truth and a hallelujah and amen to that.
I've stopped taking Mall's debates out of principle... something about low-hanging fruit.
Based on your challenge that no one accepts your debate, therefore, your resolution is true [your post #4, and in the description] is about as lame [Danielle's sentiment in #3, and I share it] as the statement, "Anyone who reads this sentence is a fool." You just read it, didn't you? Do believe the statement? Is it true?
The same answer belongs to your challenge.
"Yes there are no takers. The topic statement is indeed true ."
This came across as gloating to me.
Ultimately, every time you put forward a topic so vapid, vague, or non-controversial that no one accepts it, you fail. The point of DebateArt is not being right or uncontested about things. No one is posting topics like "π is 3.14..." that are obviously true. There is no Debate and there is definitely no Art in this topic. It better serves the purpose of the site to argue for the wrong position, as long as you do it well and learn something along the way.
Yes there are no takers. The topic statement is indeed true .
This is yet another incredibly stupid framing of an incredibly stupid debate topic. There's no clear resolution which is why the instigator has to spend so much time explaining what they mean (and still did a very poor job). It looks like he's saying you need a sperm and egg to procreate which has nothing to do with the topic he proposed. Lame.
We see eye to eye. No takers on this topic, you all can concede that the topic statement is true.
And taking my statements and trying to argue that they mean what he wants them to mean... its maalll.. You're still wrong. That statement supposes that heterosexuality isn't necessary for human reproduction, nothing of what you think