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

Gays can't reproduce so they must be recruiting.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 8/23/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 314 times Debate No: 94926
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




My stance is that gays are born, can reproduce, and are not recruiting.

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.


I accept this debate. My opponent does not set out what I must argue ("I'm not sure what the opposing side is stating on this"), so, this will be an interesting debate. Good luck to my opponent!
Debate Round No. 1


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." [0]




People are not born gay, but rather gay people recruit.

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.
Debate Round No. 2


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."


Let's wrap up this debate with some key issues to vote on.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 month ago
>Reported vote: missmozart// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: This is what happens when you don't provide proper definitions in the beginning. Con barely got a chance to debate because of this and as a result, argument points go to Pro because she provided a decent argument based on her definition of "gay".

[*Reason for removal*] While an assessment of the circumstances regarding definitions within the debate, the voter does have to do more than simply state that one side wins definitions and generally wins arguments based on those definitions. This RFD still requires specific analysis of arguments made by both sides to explain why the voter found arguments from Con to affirm the resolution under his definitions, and why Pro's failed under those same definitions.
Posted by whiteflame 1 month ago
>Reported vote: TheCritic89// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: I understood the position Con was attempting to take, though I would say I understand the scientific reasons for taking such a position. I still agree with Con simply for my own purposes. Pro gave a much better debate in their arguments and the use of their tactics.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct, S&G or sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters in order to come to a decision. Vaguely alluding to better arguments and tactics from one side is insufficient.
Posted by Stupidape 1 month ago
"This is what happens when you don't provide proper definitions in the beginning. Con barely got a chance to debate because of this and as a result, argument points go to Pro because she provided a decent argument based on her definition of "gay". "

I call shenanigans, my opponent could tell from the context what I meant. Also, I disputed the definition. I think it takes away from the improvisation of posting if we must define every term. Also, it bogs down the discussion. Besides, people can always change the definition of a word mentioned later in the debate.
Posted by canis 2 months ago
Not gays can reproduce so they must recruting..An endless suply ?
Posted by Stupidape 2 months ago
I clarified my position.
Posted by malalo75 2 months ago
Please don't feed the trolls.
Posted by Radical_Spaghetti2 2 months ago
I'm a little confused
Are you saying "No, gay people can't reproduce and thus, must be recruiting"
or are you saying "No, gay people can't reproduce, but they are not recruiting"

I'd love to debate you, but I don't understand what you mean...
Posted by GrimlyF 2 months ago
I am new to this site and am unsure how to proceed.Are you in agreement with the statement "Gays can not breed?".
No votes have been placed for this debate.