Gays can't reproduce so they must be recruiting.
Debate Rounds (3)
I'm not sure what the opposing side is stating on this. I think there is some scientific explanation for Gays, though I'm not sure never bother to look into the topic.
Burden of proof is 51% on Pro. Thanks for the debate.
My opponent doesn't seem to understand what this is about. I stumbled upon a website here that should help you understand the issue so we have a good debate. I will argue that people are born gay and gays don't recruit. Thanks for debating.
My opponent is supposed to argue this line of reasoning
"Because homosexuals can't reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. Homosexuals can be heard chanting "TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT" in their homosexual parades. A group called the "Lesbian Avengers" prides itself on trying to recruit young girls. They print "WE RECRUIT" on their literature." 
Gay is defined by Merriam-Webster as "happy and excited; cheerful and lively." Prefer this definition because my opponent didn't offer a definition, thus we must choose this one. Even if you think that the website my opponent cited in their last round was a definition, you should still prefer my definition because it was a more credible source and it is the more commonly used definition (as opposed to the slang that my opponent uses it as).
So it doesn't make sense that people would be born gay. In fact, nearly all babies cry at birth. That's not a sign of cheerful and lively people! It is also the case that people can control their emotions and cheer themselves up. They can become gay, but are not born so.
Gay people do recruit. In fact, many websites exist trying to recruit happy people because they perform better. And once those happy people are there, they would recruit other happy people. Studies also show that being around cheerful people makes us more cheerful. So in a sense, they are recruiting simply by being gay.
Please vote pro! Thank you.
My opponent is trying to switch the definitions on me. I meant this definition. You can tell by the context of the previous rounds that this is what I meant.
" A person whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same sex."
1) Topicality. My opponent claims that my entire case is off topic, and just now provides a definition. They did not provide a definition previously, so you should accept mine because of the unwritten rule not to add new arguments in the final chance to argue for either side. Even if you accept this new definition, you should still prefer mine because it is from a more credible source (Merriam-Webster as opposed to the user-created Free Dictionary); and it is a more commonly used definition.
2) My case. Extend all of my arguments as my opponent does nothing to refute them. Gay people aren't born because babies are almost universally crying and upset at birth, and gay people do recruit simply by being happy.
3) My opponent's case. My opponent actually doesn't have a case or any points toward their side, so they can't possibly win the debate, even if I lose on topicality.
For all these reasons, please vote pro! Thank you, and thanks to my opponent for a good debate.
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.