The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

All professional swimmers are categorised as homosexuals

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,418 times Debate No: 64417
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




To start off my argument I would like to say that all professional swimmers are homosexual.

I have a list of openly gay swimmers to also kick us off
1. Greg Louganis
2. Bobby Goldsmith
3. Bruce Hayes
4. Daniel Kowalski
5. Mark Tewksbury
6. Dan Veatch
7. Johan Kenkhuis
8. Diana Nyad
9. Matthew Mitcham
10. Jack Mackenroth
11. Tom Daley

If anyone can present a valid argument as to whether all professional swimmers are homosexual or not I would gladly argue with you since I am a great arguer.


I am an okay arguer, and I found this debate to be humorous. I accept your challenge and would like to offer some definitions and observations before I begin my argument.

Definition 1: "All", is defined as "every", meaning that when the Pro claims that "all" he means every single person who has performed professional swimming. This mean that there is no exception to this rule and if the Pro claims that there are some exceptions, than he is contradicting the resolution.

Definition 2: "Homosexuals" are defined as "sexually attracted to people of one's own sex". I believe this goes without saying but the term "homosexuals" encompasses both male and female constituents.

(All definitions come from

I will now begin my case.

Resolved: All professional swimmers are categorised as homosexuals
Stance: Negative
Contention 1: Resolution is a False Dichotomy.

Sub Contention 1: There are "straight" professional swimmers...

I only need to mention 1 straight swimmer of any gender to disprove the resolution, and I would like to mention Sharron Davies. Sharron Davies was married and bore children to a male partner. This shows that she is not a homosexual. To further prove my point, I would like to mention the couple Rebecca Adlington and Harry Needs, a swimming couple who married. I mention 2 scenarios, disproving the idea that "all" swimmers are homosexuals.

Sub Contention 2: You can be a homosexual and not be a swimmer....

If all swimmers are homosexuals, then all homosexuals are swimmers. I would like to mention Elton John, Ellen ellen Degeneres and Portia de Rossi. None of these people are professional swimmers...... yet they are homosexuals.

I would like to reiterate that I do not need to prove that all professional swimmers are straight, only that some are in order to negate the resolution. I believe I have presented sufficient evidence to prove my point, and therefore the resolution must fall.
Debate Round No. 1


Hey there Gahere you licker. I have returned to prove you wrong.

Sub Contention 2 Returned:
I never did state that all homosexuals are swimmers but all professional swimmers are in fact homosexuals.

I would also like to say that all of the swimmers that you stated were straight and are not professional because no one knows them and therefore they do not count in this category. I would also like to state two more professional swimmers that are homosexual.
1. Ian Thorpe
2. Luke Harris

Evidence: Here is evidence in a straw poll showing that no one knows the swimmers you stated.


Hello again Simcha,

I would like to begin my rebuttal by defending my case.

For starters, my opponent never addressed my contention as a whole, but since I figured I may as well, I will defend my sub contentions. To defend the attack on my second sub-contention, I would like to propose a concept that my opponent has failed to address: syllogisms.

For example, the statement "P=Q" infers that "Q=P" is true as a general principle. If you let the variable P represent "professional swimmers" and Q represent "homosexuals", then you get the syllogism that professional swimmers are homosexuals AND that homosexuals are professional swimmers. Through explanation of the syllogism, you can see that the resolution does not address the possible "dysfunction" of the syllogism and therefore, my sub-contention must stand.

On addressing the general attack on that my "swimmers" not being "professional" enough since "no one knows them". I would like to state that my opponent offers no definition for what constitutes "fame" and by what degree of popularity his swimmers are in comparison to my own. He offered one single piece of evidence to back this claim, a poll. Upon inspection of his evidence, I realised that only 1 person voted in the entire poll, and for some reason... I have the odd suspicion that the single vote was made by my opponent himself. Of course I have no proof, other than the fact that the poll states my three swimmers by name, and ONLY these three swimmers. Because of this, I would like the voters to not only disregard the piece of evidence, but see it as "self-created", degrading the opponents "case" as a whole.

Since I would like to leave no loose ends, I propose Olympic Swimmer Mark Andrew Spitz, 7 Gold medalist, father and husband (ergo, not a homosexual). I would also like to nominate Matt Biondi, an Olympic Swimmer inducted in the International Swimming Hall of Fame. More importantly, he is a father and husband and therefore, not a homosexual. To address the "fame" around these two candidates to my cause, I would like to point out that one was a 7 Gold medalist (one below Phelps) and the other is in the Hall of Fame indicating that "someone" knows them.

I have successfully defended both my sub-contentions, my single contention and my evidence. I should point out that my opponent believes that by listing swimmers he is proving a case, which any debater should know, is complete folly. I should also point out that fabricating evidence in order to better your case is unprofessional and is akin to throwing punches "below the belt" so to speak, but I digress. I have successfully negated the resolution with the mere mention of many straight swimmers that perform on a professional level and by mentioning several homosexuals that are not swimmers. The resolution is negated, the opponents case (which is virtually non-existent) sunk, and my case still stands tall.

I rest my case and Good Night!

(P.S. I am not sure what a "Licker" is.....)
Debate Round No. 2


Simcha forfeited this round.


I accept my opponent's forfeit.....
Debate Round No. 3


I think you are homosexual


An irrelevant argument made by my opponent in the sense that it didn't apply to the case and it was an ad hominem made to my person directly. My attacks still stand for this round since he neither defended nor attacked my case. My opponents shallow attempt to get a rise out of me really isn't surprising, after all, it is coming from an extremely shallow individual.
Debate Round No. 4


Simcha forfeited this round.


Well then..... Lets see.

My entire case stands while my opponents' case is completely rekt. I won undisputedly rounds 3,4 and 5 with the first round being acceptance and the second round being case revealing + an attack made by me.

I would like to thank my opponent for a humorous debate and await the judging round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
Michael Phelps made his money from endorsements not swimming.
He made his money from his celebrity status as the top amateur athlete in the country.
You may as well say Pairs Hilton is a professional for being famous.
Posted by phersh18 1 year ago
Swimming IS a profession. Michael Phelps is the greatest athlete who ever lived and his net worth is 55 million dollars. I bet that is a lot better than you do. Also the key word in this is All. All i have to do is name one non-gay swimmer, Ryan Lochte and your argument is now invalid.
Posted by cuntface666 1 year ago
I wish the holocaust actually happened
Posted by JowlCaddasy 1 year ago
In conclusion, segregation and the apartheid was beneficial to all people involved.
Posted by ChrisOlive98 1 year ago
as an additional point, all people who run on the track are straight and not homosexual.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
swimming is not a profession
Posted by anthonysluggett 1 year ago
this is a great point by simcha because all swimmers i know are huge pole sitters
No votes have been placed for this debate.