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

Animals that exhibit homosexual behavior exist in nature

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 390 times Debate No: 91189
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I saw on you contest somebody on this topic before, so I decided to bring forward a challenge.
First Round : Acceptance
No use of Google Docs
There will only be two rounds because I don't think we'll need any more than that.


It never happens naturally- ever.
Debate Round No. 1


The fish snags the worm.
This is not truly going to be a debate, because the statement "Animals that exhibit homosexual behavior exist in nature" is irrefutable fact, established by extensive scientific research, which I provide below.

The research:
List of Animals that exhibit homosexual behavior:

As it clearly says at the beginning of the second link, in order to get on the list, the animals must have...
"documented evidence of homosexual behavior of one or more of the following kinds: sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting"

As the statement I support is also supported by countless organizations and the scientific community. I rest my case.


Well first of all I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source because I could just go on there and type in anything I want. But regardless, your sources don't really prove anything since it's all false.

First of all, unlike humans, hen animals hump another, they aren't mating believe it or not, usually they're just declaring dominance. Nextly, just because two animals follow each other around a lot doesn't mean they are gay, infact they only stay together enable to defend larger portions of land, so unless my opponent is going to mistake a police man having a partner for him being gay- gay animals do not exist.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by LimeJello_yummy 2 years ago
Yeah the debate was pretty thin. I had a 1000 char limit because I didn't think we needed any more. Sorry about that.
Posted by LimeJello_yummy 2 years ago
Yeah. Wikipedia articles have bibliographies for a reason.
And yes this debate is "asss" because it's not really debate. You can't prove a fact is not a fact right?
Posted by Arnold_Benjaman 2 years ago
This debate is asss.
Posted by squonk 2 years ago
LOL stupid harrytruman
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Peepette 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO contends that homosexual behavior exist in nature. PRO uses citations to make her argument rather than using them to support an argument. The reader should only need to check the validity of a cit. not read it in full as argument. PRO?s single quote makes the argument against CON contention that homosexuality does not exist in nature; where he rebuts behavior exhibited is for territory or establishing dominance. This is just an assertion with no evidence. This was a very thin debate where neither side put much effort into developing arguments. The win to PRO, merely due to quote. S&G tied, no readability issues. Conduct tied, both respectful. No source points since it was not used to support an argument.