The Instigator
tbhidc
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
baus
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Gay people are sexually attracted to themselves

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 6 votes the winner is...
baus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,792 times Debate No: 55520
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (6)

 

tbhidc

Pro

R1 for acceptance.
baus

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
tbhidc

Pro

My argument is a very simple one.

P1: All gay people are attracted to a person of the same gender
P2: A gay person is the same gender as himself
C: A gay person is attracted to himself

Premise 1 is true by the definition of homosexual. Homosexual means, "sexually attracted to people of the same sex" [1].

Premise 2 is true by Leibniz's law. [2]

Leibniz's law states that if A and B are the same thing, then whatever properties A has, B will have.

Since a gay person is the same as himself, then whatever properties this gay person has, himself will also have. This means that since he has the property of being male, himself will also have the property of being male.

So the resolution remains affirmed.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.oberlin.edu...
baus

Con

Here is where Pro's case falls apart: Gay people are not attracted to all people of the same gender as themselves, they are only sexually attracted to those of their own gender that happen to register as above average in attractiveness. It is therefore illogical to assume that he/she'd find themselves sexually attractive since, by probability alone, it is more likely that they are average or below average on the scale of attractiveness of people of their gender.

Here is why the 'P1, P2 and C' scheme of things fundamentally fails.

'P1' correctly states that all gay people are attracted to a person of the same gender. 'P2' correctly states that a gay person is the same gender as himself/herself. However, 'C' erroneously assumes that the gay person qualifies as attractive on their own scale.

I shall now mathematically prove that it is more probable that the gay people in question either qualify as average or ugly on the scale of sexual attractiveness.

The average of something is calculated by one of three methods; the mean, the median or the mode.

The mode, which relies on an individual judging people's attractiveness based on what the most identical look they've seen in their life has been means that only twins, clones or any single-zygotic multitude of children would be capable of being sexually attracted to themselves.

The median, which states that the exact numerical middle of all items in a sequence must be the average has the fact that there is one more individual that is not sexually attractive to the individual than those that are (the middle guy/girl). Therefore, this median, average, person is making it automatically more probable that a person will be sexually unattractive to themselves as opposed to attractive

The mean, which requires a person to add all the combined attractiveness of every individual and divide it by the amount of people that they've met offers the exact same problem as the median does; the exact middle guy/girl is going to be sexually null/unattractive to the faggot/lesbian.

Here is an explanation of how averages work:
http://www.mathsrevision.net...

Now I shall take a second line of attack on the resolution; that of the non-quantifiable version of attractiveness.

Assuming that attractiveness is purely qualitative and subjective, we must analyze how people would come to the conclusion that they are sexually attractive to begin with.

I shall now define some terms before I elaborate on my argument.
Attractive:
Pleasing or appealing to the senses.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Pleasing:
Satisfying or appealing
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Appealing:
Attractive or interesting
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Now, why would a person find themselves particularly interesting or satisfying if they see themselves all the time? They would be numbed after extensive exposure, much in the same way that drug addicts find their drug of addiction less satisfying over time (http://hosted.comm100.com...). The only way to achieve the same highs are for the drug addict to increase their dosage but gay people cannot increase their exposure to themselves as they are involuntarily exposed to themselves 24/7.

The only alternative is if a person is severely narcissistic[http://www.mayoclinic.org...] or suffers from issociative identity disorder[http://www.webmd.com...] in which case they may end up either loving themselves to a level that enable sexual attraction to themselves or thinking that the person in the mirror is someone other than themselves.

In conclusion, it is far less probably that gay people are sexually attracted to themselves than that they are not
Debate Round No. 2
tbhidc

Pro

My opponent tries to escape the simple argument by over-complexifying the issue.

To begin with, note that homosexual means, "sexually attracted to people of the same sex". It doesn't say "sexually attracted to SEXY people of the same sex" or "sexually attracted to people of the same sex with big butts" or anything like that. SO my opponent is kindof playing semantics here. The definition says that homosexuals (gays) are attracted to people of the same sex. The end.

Furthermore, often times people are attracted to someone not just because of their appearance, but also because they love the person. I think it's pretty obvious that most people love themselves. Most people then, should be sexually attracted to a person whom they love, and who is the gender that this person finds sexually attractive.

In addition to this, I am obviously talking about sexy gay people. Why would I start a debate about ugly or average gay people? If I start a debate that says "bananas are tasty!" it goes without saying that I am referring to high-quality and ripe bananas. NOT ugly or spoiled bananas. We're not making banana bread here. We're talking about the perfectly sized, perfectly weighted, correct textured banana.

So it goes without saying that gay people are sexually attracted to themselves.

Good debate, but it's over.

In addition to this, we can see that since most people masturbate, they must find themselves some what attractive. If you found someone unattractive, you wouldn't have sex with them. But people have sex with themselves. So they must not find themselves unattractive. Not unattractive means "attractive". Two negatives make a positive.
baus

Con

I never stated that people were only sexually attracted to sexy people of the same sex. I said that the definition of attractive means that is is inevitably less likely that a gay person would be attracted to themselves.

The definition of attraction does not incorporate love and the probability that someone would love themselves is low as it insinuates narcissistic personality disorder, which I already explained is in the minority of human beings, as well as in the minority of gay people.

You never specified that the gay people in question are not ugly or unattractive. Thus, it is not at all correct to say that it "goes without saying". The resolution must state this given attribute of the gay person otherwise it should not be assumes.

"In addition to this, we can see that since most people masturbate, they must find themselves some what attractive." Then you are erroneously claiming that all heterosexuals who masturbate are inherently gay. This is absolutely incorrect because the stimulation of the genitalia is not the same as having sex with oneself, which requires one genitalia interacting with another and the last time I checked, people don't flip their penises under themselves and into their own anus to masturbate.

Masturbation is not having with oneself because if you masturbate you are still a virgin.

I conclude that gay people are most likely not attracted to themselves.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Shadow-Dragon 3 years ago
Shadow-Dragon
Haha, interesting debate. Funny.
Posted by baus 3 years ago
baus
Do not feel like a loser for losing a debate. You are not a loser, you just failed to win votes.
Posted by tbhidc 3 years ago
tbhidc
My arguments were clearly the superior ones. I know that, despite these votes, I am the true winner.

I console myself every night with that thought. :'( Otherwise it just... it just... it gets to me. *sobs*
Posted by tbhidc 3 years ago
tbhidc
You're right. It's not logically valid. It's a joke ;P
Posted by Envisage 3 years ago
Envisage
The argument is not logically valid....... *sigh*
Posted by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
This was interesting!
Posted by tbhidc 3 years ago
tbhidc
Lol. If I made a debate titled "Bananas taste good" should I title it "Good tasting bananas taste good"??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Posted by Carthage 3 years ago
Carthage
Then title your debate as such.
Posted by ami1 3 years ago
ami1
This is like saying that every sister is attracted to her brother, and vice versa. The comment you made changed your opening argument, thus making it untrue. So, now your argument is: 'Every sexy gay person is attracted to themselves'. Define 'sexy', and then maybe we're getting somewhere because at the moment, you're argument is in shambles.
Posted by tbhidc 3 years ago
tbhidc
Good looking gay people are attracted to themselves though.

It's like if I say: Bananas taste good. And you say: But some bananas are rotten! Well the point is, ripe bananas taste good.

So when I say gay people are attracted to themselves, I mean sexy gay people.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by mendel 3 years ago
mendel
tbhidcbausTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I had to agree with pro that cons argument about not everyone being sexy, is not a valid point, because unless the opposite gender is repulsive there's always some kind of attraction, and it's unusual for people to hate themselves, especially to the point of revulsion. However pro did not respond to the argument that with constant exposure there would be no attraction, similar to the reason why probably most normal people are not attracted to their families.
Vote Placed by DerKing 3 years ago
DerKing
tbhidcbausTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - "unattractive to the faggot/lesbian." Faggot in many places is an insult. However, Con did have much more in depth arguments and provided more and better sources. And Pro's third round is full of stupidity. For one, Pro had the same problem as they claimed Con did, what the definition of homosexual means, but he made the same assertion. Also, masturbating is not having sex, having sex REQUIRES two people, by its definition. One other thing, you do not have to be attracted to a person to have sex with them, she just have to want to have sex really badly.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
tbhidcbausTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's entire argument was based on logical fallacies. Con exposed these despite not outright naming them. I enjoy pro's wit, but he failed to prove his case.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
tbhidcbausTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con pointed out that attracted to some members of X group =/= attracted to all members of X group, which is more than enough to point out that not ALL gay people would be attracted to themselves. Further, very few people of any orientation are sexually attracted to themselves, which would make very few gay people sexually attracted to themselves. Con provided more sources.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
tbhidcbausTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Frankly, Pro's case rests upon a faulty assumption: that homosexual individuals are attracted to more people of their gender than not. He never proves this. It's not enough to present a logical syllogism that doesn't link to its conclusion (attraction to members of your gender =/= attraction to most members), not to mention that it practically assumes that a gay male is attracted to every male he sees, with the same being true for females. That's a large assumption, and even te limited reasoning I could determine would bolster such a claim is absent from this argument. You need to do more than show that there is a chance of self-attraction. The masturbation point was blatantly fallacious, as Con pointed out. I'm also giving Con sources, as he was the only one to utilize them to any great effect.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
tbhidcbausTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: CON could have stopped after one sentence; PRO's argument is absurd. Conduct to CON because PRO accused CON of avoiding the question when he addressed it head on; Sources to CON because he supported all of his points.