All professional swimmers are categorised as homosexuals
Debate Rounds (5)
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.
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 Dicctionary.com)
I will now begin my case.
Resolved: All professional swimmers are categorised as homosexuals
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.
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.
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.....)
Simcha forfeited this round.
Simcha forfeited this round.
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.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.