The Instigator
Cobalt
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
mall
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Homosexuality is a natural occurrence and is not significantly harmful to society.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/27/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 454 times Debate No: 93141
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Cobalt

Pro

By "homosexuality" I am referring to both "being homosexual" and "homosexual acts". I will be arguing that a) homosexuality is natural and b) that homosexuality is not significantly harmful to society. For the sake of specificity, the scope of "society" should not go beyond first world countries.

Rules:

1. BoP is shared. The winner will be whichever debater presents the most compelling arguments.
2. A minimum ELO of 2,001 is required in order to accept.
3. Arguments based in semantics or kritiks of the resolution will not be considered. (I feel that they rarely positively impact a debate.)
4. Voting is "select winner". Despite this, conduct should remain decorous.

Make sure to note rule 2. It is impossible to accept this debate if you've had less than 5 debates, but I cannot set a lower bound on ELO. The "initial" ELO of a person is 2,000, so all people with 5+ debates will need to have won more than they've lost in order to have a 2001+ ELO. This requirement is in place to increase the quality of the debate, especially given the controversial nature of the topic.

Round Structure:

No new arguments in the final two rounds. The opponent can use round 1 as either acceptance or to present an opening case. I leave that decision in their hands.

A Note on BoP:

While the BoP is shared, I will only win if I present more compelling arguments for both considerations. (Homosexuality is natural and homosexuality is not harmful to society.) The opponent will win if their arguments are more compelling for either consideration.

I look forward to this debate.
mall

Con

Is homosexuality natural? Let's define natural . In my owns words, natural are the things that already exist in nature or exists innate. These are things that come about and or present essentially without them being introduced any other way outside of that . Nurturing, teaching , influencing, providing and giving are all other ways happening outside the natural . Now how does sexual orientation come about, particularly homosexuality? As far as research goes, it's inconclusive whether it's truly just natural, genetic, biological, etc. . There are a lot of cases that weigh on both sides. The two sides with one being born with pre-determined configuration of sexuality and the other being an influence. So basically one would ask a homosexual , how did your feelings, desires, physical attractions for one gender than the other begin ? The person will give you their life story depending on their comfort level of perhaps conveying the explicit details of how it all started. I trust each personal account will be different .Then the answer will be available to the question of " Is homosexuality natural?".The answer may or will change from individual to individual . Is homosexuality significantly harmful to society? Yes, to people that are able at continuing to sustain their existence via reproducing themselves. Now anything treated very significantly would be in a situation that's truly serious. However when dealing with something that's harmfully significant or insignificant I would believe that everyone one of us sees it as all being the same . We wouldn't want either one actually. Any type of harm to whatever degree is a "no go" so I will continue with just using the word harmful. Now society has to do with being defined as a particular place so it's not just harfmful to society but the world abroad . Why is it harmful? What is harmful? What does one consider to be harmful?(to people in particularly). One may or will harm another thing to gain prosperity. A group of persons may harm another thing or things to gain prosperity even health wise meaning for health reasons . It may be harmful for that other thing according to that other thing's perspective but quite opposite to the thing or person that inflicted the action which can be described as harmful. Something that is ultimately harmful for PEOPLE in general is unhealthy . Unhealthy means a deterioration in their well being. It's damaging, adverse, negative for their existence. As we can see more and more of a life that is not healthy will not continue to remain present. It will result in the absence of life . Absence of something is the negative which is the opposite of no harm . Harmful works in a process to cease life . What are one of the ways to cease life cumulatively? That is to promote and cease the operation of heterosexuality that combines resources to promote the growth in the fruit of life . Particularly non-incest heterosexuality because again , in reference to what has been studied and stated by the individuals whom have done so, we are aiming for the best quality of life and welfare. With homosexual acts that do vary between individuals , basing it on what's actually being done or utilized, it is very well likely that the wasting of resources designed for promoting human life is occurring. Now of course this also depends on what a person thinks the use of the bodily functions are for. Some will say "the body is the body and function is function. So as long as I'm not hurting the person next door, that's all that matters."It's good to observe the results of an action. Just make sure it's looked at as a whole. As something that repeats over and over again, will the result overall be exactly the same ? That's what's meant by seeing the result in something cumulatively or in principle. Sometimes the result isn't fully presented or immediate. The result of actions may be a long-term, gradual process. Also it is in accordance to the condition the actions are made in that produce the true outcome. That's why it helps to make an effort to examine the purpose of the existence of something as well . Look at the design of a particular thing or part and it's ingredient(s). The design will communicate something in regards to the aim/objective for it's particular function in the first place. We can ignore all that and just go with how we feel. It may feel good now and hurt or harm later.
Debate Round No. 1
Cobalt

Pro

I'll be covering both parts of the resolution in individual sections, for clarity. I'll reference the points made by the opponent, then refute them. I will present additional arguments at the end, if I find they are necessary.

Is it Natural

The opponent defines natural as "the things that already exist in nature or exists innate. These are things that come about and or present essentially [sic] without them being introduced any other way outside of that."

This explanation is fairly adequate. I would generalize the definition by saying that "natural" means "found in nature".

The opponent goes on to say that the research isn't yet in on whether sexual orientation is affected by genetic factors. This claim is generally considered true in the scientific community. However, "natural" extends beyond genetics and beyond even humans. When we're looking at whether a particular behavior is considered "natural", it behooves us to look at whether other creatures demonstrate this behavior.

In the case of homosexual behavior, it is well known-that many animals engage in this at varying rates. Some 10% of prevailing animal species have been found to engage in homosexual behavior. [1] This statistically significant frequency of homosexual behavior implies that homosexual feelings are natural.

We can furthermore look at human history and see that homosexual acts took place in most every culture since at least 500 BC. This implies that homosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomenon, as it has continued to occur despite any culture's values and laws. If homosexuality was only a product of "nurture", we would expect it to simply not exist at any significant scale in cultures that strictly forbid it. This has not been the case. [2]

Conclusion

An analysis of both human and non-human behavioral patterns indicates that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon.

Is Homosexuality Significantly Harmful to Society

The opponent's arguments arguments are as follows:

1. Homosexuaity is not compatible with reproduction.

(A. Insignificant harm is just as much a "no go" as a significant harm.)

(B. A description and examples of the term "harm".)

2. Homosexuality wastes resources intended for promoting human life.

3. Homosexuality has people using their bodies in a way not consistent with biological function.

----------------------------------

The opponent's argument is incoherent at times, but I believe the above effectively summarizes his points. (As a note to the opponent, please use paragraphs in your next argument. That will help me and the readers tremendously.)

We'll look at each of these arguments and points individually. (Points are lettered, while arguments are numbered.)

1. Homosexuality is not compatible with reproduction.

It is true that homosexual couples are generally incapable of conceiving a child on their own. This, however, does not present any harm to society.

The only foreseeable negative impact here is in the extreme case that "everyone is gay" and humanity can no longer produce offspring. This would assumably lead to the extinction of the human race, which is inarguably bad for society. Fortunately for us, this case will never occur. Allow me to explain.

First, we note that homosexuality seems to only affect a relatively small portion of any species. In humans, the data has yet to hone in on an exact value, but it is estimated to be between 3.5% and 12% of the population. [3] This means some 6.3 billion people are heterosexual. Considering that population growth is exponential and that in just 2000, there were only 6.1 billion people on the planet [4], it is clear that homosexuality does not threaten the global population.

We can further note that overpopulation is a significant problem. [5] Since killing people in order to reduce the population is generally thought of as unethical, the remaining solution is to have less babies. Homosexuality contributes to the decrease in birth rate, even if only mildly. Considering this, one sees that homosexual's inability to reproduce is actually good for society, as it helps curb overpopulation.

Finally, we can look at an "edge scenario" in which something has happened and large swathes of people are becoming homosexual. Even in this case, modern medicine is advanced enough such that surrogacy can adequately all for reproduction. A homosexual man's sperm is very capable of fertilizing a homosexual woman's egg through medical means. So even if everyone was a homosexual, we would not have issues maintaining population levels.

2. Homosexuality wastes resources meant to promote human life.

I'm not entirely sure how the opponent is intending to justify this.

Perhaps he is referring to things such as food and water. This could only every be considered a "waste" if the only point of living was to create more living things. Most everyone can clearly see, however, that a life has more value than the ability to reproduce. If food and water is a "waste" on homosexuals, then it is equally as valid to say that food and water is wasted on "women of a certain age", anyone who is barren or sterile and literally anyone no longer able or willing to reproduce. This notion is clearly ridiculous.

The same logic applies to most every other resource that can be thought of.

3. Homosexuality has people using their bodies in ways not consistent with biological function.

This is true, but there is no reason to believe it is inherently bad.

For instance, many women shave their legs, even though the purpose of that hair is to protect them from the cold and ultraviolet radiation. This is using the body in a way not consistent with biological function.

At a biological level, the only purpose of sex is to reproduce. This means that anyone having sex without the intention of reproducing is also using their body in a way not consistent with biological function. There are numerous such examples and we have no reason to believe that they are all bad.

The way in which homosexuals use their bodies presents no significant threat to society. Claims to the contrary would need to be evidenced.

Point A: Insignificant harm is just as much a "no go" as significant harm.

This may well be the opponent's opinion, but I included the word "significant" in the resolution, thus limiting the scope of this debate to significant harms. There are countless insignifcant harms and benefits to most any action we take. We do not burden ourselves with trying to solve these, as they are insignificant.

So the opponent is free to point out as many ways that homosexuality can be seen as harmful to society as he would like, but they are inconsequential to this debate unless he can prove the are significant.

Point B: Examples and description of the term "harm".

I'm mostly mentioning this because a large section of the opponent's argument consisted of this. I believe we are all now aware of what constitutes a "harm".

If I missed some subpoint here, however, I ask that the opponent mention it in his next round.

Conclusion

The opponent has failed to demonstrate why homosexuality is significantly harmful to society. His point regarding reproduction was shown to be harmful only in a non-existent and impractical hedge case. Furthermore, we recognized that the purpose of life extends beyond simple reproduction. Finally, we saw that humans often use their bodies in a way non-consistent with biology and that this is not always bad. Particularly, we saw that it is not bad in the case of homosexuals.

Main Conclusion

I believe this adequately covers the opponent's arguments. My responses included plenty of information, so they should be seen as both my refutations and my arguments. I have upheld that homosexuality is both natural and not significantly harmful to society. I even proved that, in some cases, homosexuality is actually beneficial. (Hedging against overpopulation.)

I look forward to my opponents well-paragraphed response. Thanks for reading.


Sources:

1 - http://www.yalescientific.org...;
2 - http://plato.stanford.edu...;
3 - http://www.economist.com...;
4 - https://ourworldindata.org...;
5 - http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...;
mall

Con

Con Response :Let's look at the miss quotes here which is probably due to reading to fast, not comprehending the arguments. Be careful to quote verbatim and not mix the words up and confuse them. Pro stated:The opponent goes on to say that the research isn't yet in on whether sexual orientation is affected by genetic factors. Con stated: As far as research goes, it's inconclusive whether it's truly just natural, genetic, biological, etc. . There are a lot of cases that weigh on both sides. Con Response :The correct analysis is that it's inconclusive if homosexuality is truly JUST natural or only comes about naturally. It's not that we don't know from the research presented, if homosexuality is natural or not . Please continue to research on your own,and it shows that there's cases to both sides. Pro stated:A. Insignificant harm is just as much a "no go" as a significant harm.) Con Response :This is not opinion ,it's fact. If one had choices of getting shot in the limb/arm verses a vital area or not , if your HONEST,your first choice or instinct would be don't fire. Not to mention getting a flesh wound can get quite serious if not treated immediately or properly. No one wants any type of harm to them of any degree, size or severity. We're are not playing "would you rather here". This is reality unless a person is careless about their life.
(Also it's the intent to utilize all space on the page to type words to present the logic so just work on grasping it.)
Here are the fallacies -Pro stated:When we're looking at whether a particular behavior is considered "natural", it behooves us to look at whether other creatures demonstrate this behavior. Con Response :Pro will have to provide the logic and rationality behind this. Why is this the procedure to understand what is natural? Animals that are non-persons and persons contrast on a large scale. Explain the tie in there. Pro stated: In the case of homosexual behavior, it is well known-that many animals engage in this at varying rates. Some 10% of prevailing animal species have been found to engage in homosexual behavior. [1] This statistically significant frequency of homosexual behavior implies that homosexual feelings are natural. Con Response :If we use this logic of comparing between what we call animals and what people do, we're going to run into a lot problems. A lot of animal behavior that goes on would get a person arrested if repeated.One thing of a dog's nature is to sniff another dog's rear whether familiar or strange dog. Even with a cat that licks themselves clean as well as in what they call the wild the way animals hunt and perhaps tend to their young is not akin to the way people live. We won't lick ourselves in the manner of a cat or drink out of a toilet bowl like a dog. I know there's some common traits but just stick with discussing people and what they do. These are two different subclasses here. Pro stated:We can furthermore look at human history and see that homosexual acts took place in most every culture since at least 500 BC. This implies that homosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomenon, as it has continued to occur despite any culture's values and laws. If homosexuality was only a product of "nurture", we would expect it to simply not exist at any significant scale in cultures that strictly forbid it. This has not been the case. Con Response :It doesn't matter how long something wrong has been going on. Also again, there are countless cases split between homosexuality being natural or an influence. Either way , it doesn't matter because there a lot of natural deformities that individuals are born with. It's either called a deformity, abnormality etc.. That's all that will be said about this particular argument. Pro stated:The only foreseeable negative impact here is in the extreme case that "everyone is gay" and humanity can no longer produce offspring. This would assumably lead to the extinction of the human race, which is inarguably bad for society. Con stated:So as long as I'm not hurting the person next door, that's all that matters."It's good to observe the results of an action. Just make sure it's looked at as a whole. As something that repeats over and over again, will the result overall be exactly the same ? That's what's meant by seeing the result in something cumulatively or in principle. Sometimes the result isn't fully presented or immediate. Con Response :This was already addressed that in CUMULATIVE effect it's proved that homosexuality is harmful to people. So Pro has agreed to that part. Part of the topic which I will state in my own words, homosexuality is not harmful to people. We both see how it is. That's why you have to be extremely specific in the topic statement. Pro stated :First, we note that homosexuality seems to only affect a relatively small portion of any species. In humans, the data has yet to hone in on an exact value, but it is estimated to be between 3.5% and 12% of the population. [3] This means some 6.3 billion people are heterosexual. Considering that population growth is exponential and that in just 2000, there were only 6.1 billion people on the planet [4], it is clear that homosexuality does not threaten the global population.
Con Response :Why does homosexuality not threat the human population? Heterosexuality is the lifeline. It is the crutch. It is the life preserver to keep us afloat. Something that's not a threat has nothing to do with it not being harmful at least not necessarily. Another words, we should be safe with homosexuality alone. We shouldn't have to rely on heterosexuality to save us. Someone that can't swim and is barely a novice relies on the lifeguard to be the lifeline because the person swimming left unattended is in harms way. Until they are a master swimmer, the person is in a dangerous situation of water. So homosexuality is not justified because of heterosexuality.You would have to prove how it's justified by itself to be no harm. Pro stated:We can further note that overpopulation is a significant problem. [5] Since killing people in order to reduce the population is generally thought of as unethical, the remaining solution is to have less babies. Homosexuality contributes to the decrease in birth rate, even if only mildly. Considering this, one sees that homosexual's inability to reproduce is actually good for society, as it helps curb overpopulation. Con Response: In this very argument a contradiction has been made. The very fact that your acknowledging that the goal is to hinder, stunt , "curb" "overpopulation" supports the fact of being harmful to the human population. When hindering, diminishing, stunting and preventing the growth of anything properly, it is improper , incorrect , wrong, bad , injurious, damaging, hurting and all other synonymous terms. Simply as it was defined before that is to harm people is to diminish life and the process of not promoting it. How is overpopulation really a concern if there is such a thing? People die everyday all day. People are killed in masses and terror attacks . We have a biological function to reproduce persons that just leads to redundancy of existence. The contradictions on Pro's side are reproducing and "overpopulating ".Pro stated:Finally, we can look at an "edge scenario" in which something has happened and large swathes of people are becoming homosexual. Even in this case, modern medicine is advanced enough such that surrogacy can adequately all for reproduction. A homosexual man's sperm is very capable of fertilizing a homosexual woman's egg through medical means. So even if everyone was a homosexual, we would not have issues maintaining population levels. Con's Response: Of course there is no problem because again we have our lifeline heterosexuality to keep us afloat. It's a good thing people were able to survive before modern medicine. Surrogacy or artificial insemination are others forms of heterosexuality. We both know or expect that we both know that heterosexuality is the lifeline point blank. Pro stated: Perhaps he is referring to things such as food and water. This could only every be considered a "waste" if the only point of living was to create more living things. Most everyone can clearly see, however, that a life has more value than the ability to reproduce. If food and water is a "waste" on homosexuals, then it is equally as valid to say that food and water is wasted on "women of a certain age", anyone who is barren or sterile and literally anyone no longer able or willing to reproduce. This notion is clearly ridiculous. Con's Response: If you research the multiple definitions you will see the term being defined as supply, capability . material ,stock and or necessary assets. The material in man and women in this context will be referred to as the reproductive organs. They are necessary for you, myself and everyone else that's here that wasn't in the percentage of the human population that was "curbed". It's not just about the value of life or what else people can do in their lives.It's the fact that reproduction of life in principle is very essential to us or we die out. How are we going to progress on to anything else when we trying to lose focus of the order to things and criteria to establish what's called human life? We have to start at the beginning, then go forward. People that can't sexually reproduced is called a dysfunction or so to phrase it.Different from a malfunction in equipment to the misuse of it.
Pro stated:3.Homosexuality has people using their bodies in ways not consistent with biological function.This is true, but there is no reason to believe it is inherently bad. For instance, many women shave their legs, even though the purpose of that hair is to protect them from the cold and ultraviolet radiation.This is using the body in a way not consistent with biological function.Con's Conclusion: Due to character restrictions,I'm unable to respond to the remaining of Pro's arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Cobalt

Pro

For the sake of the voters and in order to suggest how the opponent's future argument should be structured, I've included a refactor of the opponent's arguments. [https://docs.google.com...]

I've added headlines and separated each argument into its own paragraph. I'd ask the opponent to do this in his next argument. Adding a space between two blocks of text only requires 2 characters, so "space" should not be an excuse not to do it. Anyway, let's look at the arguments. I'll be following along with the refactored argument posted above.

On Whether Homosexuality is Natural

The opponent corrects my misquote of him, saying "...[I]t's inconclusive if homosexuality is truly JUST natural or only comes about naturally."

This makes it clear that the opponent believes homosexuality is at least partially natural and that science has yet to conclude whether it's only natural or not.

This, however, doesn't make sense. Homosexuality is either natural or unnatural. The two qualities are opposites, meaning that they cannot both be partially true at the same time. Ie, homosexuality is either man made or it is not. In claiming that homosexuality is at least "partially natural", the opponent is indeed saying that it must only be natural, since there is no intermediary step between natural and unnatural.

What's more, I provided many arguments detailing why it is natural. These are defended below.

Determing whether a behavior is natural by looking at non-human animals.

The opponent's argument against this:

1. Animals and humans are different.
2. There are a lot of things animals do that humans don't.

On the first point, the opponent makes the common, but incorrect, assumption that "animals" and "humans" are not the same things. In actuality, humans are animals. In the set of all animals A = {'dog', 'cat', 'human', 'cow', ... }, 'human' is included. Humans are a type of animal.

It could be said that we cannot look at non-human behaviors if the behavior in question was limited to humans. In this case, it clearly is not. Since many animals engage in homosexuality, "homosexuality" is clearly an animal behavior and not just a human behavior.

As such, it makes sense to look at animals in general when determining whether a particular animal behavior is natural. This is what I did, and the evidence clearly demonstrates the homosexuality is common in animals. This common behavior of homosexuality indicates that homosexuality is natural, since it cannot be said that 10% of animal species were somehow "nurtured" into displaying homosexual behavior.

On the second point, the opponent claims that many animals do things humans don't do. And this is true. However, that doesn't make said behavior "unnatural". For instance, the use of the tongue to clean oneself is a natural behavior, since it is quite prevalent in nature. The fact that humans don't do this particular thing doesn't indicate that the behavior is unnatural -- but rather humans just happen not to do this. Note that there is a difference between "natural" and "typical".

On the History of Homosexuality

I argued that the fact that homosexuality has occurred in nearly every culture across all of recorded history indicates that it is a natural occurence, as opposed to a nurtured occurence.

The opponent's two responses:

1. It doesn't matter how long something wrong has happened.
2. People are born with natural deformities.

The opponent's points hardly address the actual point as to whether homosexuality is natural.

In the first argument, the opponent implies that because something is wrong (in his eyes) that it is unnatural. Outside of whether homosexuality is wrong (because that's a can of worms), there are plenty of things animals do that we might consider wrong. For instance, it is not uncommon for many animals to kill other animals of their species upon being provoked or due to hunger. We would consider "killing another human being" to be wrong in most cases, but this does not mean the behavior itself is unnatural.

Morally wrong =/= unnatural.

On the second point, the opponent implies that because homosexuality is a 'deformity' (in his eyes), it is not natural.

The opponent has provided no evidence that homosexuality is a deformity, so this point is null. What's more, a deformity is not indicative of something being unnatural. For instance, Down's Syndrome is a "deformity" (of the chromosomes), but its occurence is completely natural. (In that man does not cause it to happen.)

Deformity =/= unnatural

Reproduction: The ability to do such and "cumulative harm".

The opponent repeatedly brings up this idea of "cumulative harm", which makes little sense. For instance, he argues that if we must think of a society in which everyone is homosexual, then see if a harm exists.

While this may be a fun thought experiment, it is in no way indicative of real life. We are discussing whether homosexuality actually harms society, as it currently exists. For instance, I could have the resolution "Water is not harmful". Using the opponent's logic, we would look at an instance in which a person only drinks water. That person would soon starve to death and die, therefore water is harmful.

But this is not realistic. No one only drinks water and society is not only comprised of homosexuals. We have to look at how society actually is in order to determine whether something is or is not harmful to it. My evidence considers this reality and in the context of that reality, it demonstrates that homosexuality poses no threat to the continuation of the human species. I believe the quote "the dose makes the poison" is applicable here.

The frequency of homosexuality and its effect on reproduction rates.

I argued that because only some 4% - 12% of the population is gay, the lack of reproduction in homosexuals is not a threat to the population.

The opponent says that "heterosexuality" is the lifeline, arguing that in a world in which homosexuality was the only sexuality, it poses a harm.

First, it doesn't. (See my next argument regarding artificial insemination). Next, the opponent ignores actuality in preference of a fictional universe. When looking at whether something is harmful to society, we have to look at the actual state of the society. If everyone were alergic to milk, clearly "milk" would be considered harmful to society. However, the reality of society is that very few people are allergic to milk.

So again, my point stands because it shows that in this world homosexuality doesn't pose a threat to society.

Artificial insemination

I argued that, even in some weird case in which everyone was homosexual, we would still be able to reproduce.

The opponent's only response is that "artificial insemination and surrogacy is a form of heterosexuality". This is patently false. A person's sexuaity refers to the type of mates the person is sexually attracted to. A homosexual can remain a homosexual and artificially impregnate a woman. Doing this does not change the homosexual's sexuality in any way.

What's more, sexuality is a quality limited to living things. A procedure can never be given a sexuality, since it is not alive. Ergo, artificial insemination is neither homosexual or heterosexual -- since the very definition of sexuality does not allow for this.

So again, my point stands. Even in the "worst case scenario" in which everyone is homosexual, reproduction can still occur thanks to medical science. (And it's worth mentioning, a homosexual is still capable of impregnating a woman the "old fashioned way". The homosexual might not enjoy the process, but it's still very easy to accomplish. So even in a world full of homosexuals and no modern medicine, reproduction can still occur.)

Wasted Resources

I argued that it is nonsensical to say that "resources are wasted on homosexuals", since that implies that any resource not actively supporting reproduction is a waste.

The opponent's response is not cogent, but he seems to imply that the waste has to do with wasted biological resources in homosexual acts. (Wasted semen I suppose.)

Again, in our society the waste of "semen" isn't harmful. There always has been and likely always will be an excess of semen. "Wasting it" can only be considered harmful if it is in short supply. Fortunately, the population of men is roughly 3.5 billion and all of them are capable of producing semen at a very rapid rate.

So the "waste" the opponent refers to can in no way be considered "harmful" to anyone.

On Overpopulation

I argued that homosexuality is actually beneficial to society, since it helps curb overpopulation.

The opponent's response makes the false assumption that "reducing the population is harming the population". This is clearly not true, in context. The population is not harmful until it reaches a particularly low or high level.

Because of reasons previously mentioned, homosexually will never cause the population to get too low. However, it does help curb the trend of overpopulation which we are seeing now. Overpopulation is inherently harmful, so anything reducing it (through ethical means) is beneficial. I've illustrated that homosexuality provides the reduction, which makes it beneficial.

The idea that "anything that diminishes the population is harmful" is incorrect and unfounded. The existence of overpopulation is evidence toward the contrary.

Significant vs Insignificant

Again, I've limited this resolution to only significant harms. The opponent has the right to the opinion that we should consider all harms, but that opinion is trumped by the statement of the resolution.

What's more, this point is irrelevant, since we're not really looking at any insignificant harms thus far.


Conclusion

I've demonstrated that the opponent's arguments are insufficient. I have shown homosexuality is not harmful and is natural, and the opponent's response has not adequately refuted this.

I look forward to the next round, in which I am sure my opponent will properly format his argument.
mall

Con

Pro stated: This, however, doesn't make sense. Homosexuality is either natural or unnatural. The two qualities are opposites, meaning that they cannot both be partially true at the same time. Ie, homosexuality is either man made or it is not. In claiming that homosexuality is at least "partially natural", the opponent is indeed saying that it must only be natural, since there is no intermediary step between natural and unnatural. What's more, I provided many arguments detailing why it is natural. Con's Re' : So based on how Pro continues to push for the votes on homosexuality to be 100% natural in all cases is personal. Pro believes and want's homosexuality behavior to be 100% natural by continuing to discuss it. I never stated that no one can be born with a pre-determined same-sex orientation according to the research. However, pro wishes to cherry pick and just ignore research, testimonies and cases that point to how individuals were in certain experiences that molded their sexuality and went down the particular path that was there. Earlier in Pro's Arguments, Pro stated: The opponent goes on to say that the research isn't yet in on whether sexual orientation is affected by genetic factors. This claim is generally considered true in the scientific community. Con's response: If pro's wishes to disprove and deny testimony about individuals that were influenced via a tragedy as well as those that are no longer homosexual but are now heterosexual, please proceed. Pro Stated:Determing whether a behavior is natural by looking at non-human animals.The opponent's argument against this: 1. Animals and humans are different.2. There are a lot of things animals do that humans don't. On the first point, the opponent makes the common, but incorrect, assumption that "animals" and "humans" are not the same things. In actuality, humans are animals. In the set of all animals A={'dog', 'cat', 'human', 'cow', ... }, 'human' is included. Humans are a type of animal. Con stated: Animals that are non-persons and persons contrast on a large scale. Explain the tie in there. Con's response: Pro has a big misunderstanding about this statement. So just to make it clear, no where in that statement , did it state that people and what we call animals are not the same things. That's exactly why I used the terms the way I did. I used the phrasing "Animals that are non-persons' because I'm aware that we all are classified in the animalia kingdom. Time must taken to grasp this very carefully and not to review these arguments so rashly. Con also stated: I know there's some common traits but just stick with discussing people and what they do. Con's response: So again there is no denying that we all in the living organism classification. But the key is to know where to draw the line and pro is lost in drawing it. I will not constantly repeat the arguments so please by all means go back and review. Pro stated: On the second point, the opponent claims that many animals do things humans don't do. And this is true. However, that doesn't make said behavior "unnatural". For instance, the use of the tongue to clean oneself is a natural behavior, since it is quite prevalent in nature. The fact that humans don't do this particular thing doesn't indicate that the behavior is unnatural -- but rather humans just happen not to do this. Note that there is a difference between "natural" and "typical". Con's Response: Why don't they do it ? Once more, persons will do what is natural to them as well as "animals" will do likewise unto them. That's all we have to keep in mind of what nature is. A thing will do whatever is in it's nature without influence. So to oppose that is contradicting yourself. Pro stated: The opponent's points hardly address the actual point as to whether homosexuality is natural.In the first argument, the opponent implies that because something is wrong (in his eyes) that it is unnatural. Outside of whether homosexuality is wrong (because that's a can of worms), there are plenty of things animals do that we might consider wrong. For instance, it is not uncommon for many animals to kill other animals of their species upon being provoked or due to hunger. We would consider "killing another human being" to be wrong in most cases, but this does not mean the behavior itself is unnatural. Morally wrong =/= unnatural. Con's response: Either these are numerous assumptions one after another or Pro is not understanding anything I've stated. The whole natural argument has been made pretty clear that whether natural or not or 50/50, it has nothing to do with something being right or wrong. As it was stated, the history of a deformity or a behavior doesn't make any justification. If so, Pro can provide the logic on how something is right because it's natural and vice versa. Driving a car and tying your shoes is not natural except the aspect of the natural ability to learn to do these things is not wrong. Pro has to separate nature from morality. The terms are not synonymous .Pro stated:On the second point, the opponent implies that because homosexuality is a 'deformity' (in his eyes), it is not natural. The opponent has provided no evidence that homosexuality is a deformity, so this point is null. What's more, a deformity is not indicative of something being unnatural. For instance, Down's Syndrome is a "deformity" (of the chromosomes), but its occurence is completely natural. (In that man does not cause it to happen.) Deformity =/= unnatural. Con Response: Is it not evidence that the physical anatomy of a person that contains reproductive organs designed by the instructions of the genes to serve as a function of reproduction factual? To go opposite or against that function of the usage of the organs. Is it not a dysfunction, abnormality , irregularity , disorder, malformation, deformity , illness, etc. somewhere in the genes that dictate sexuality/gender? Look at biology honestly and this was where the argument was going in reference to what was called 'biological compatibility 'in prior argument. Again , not mentioning about what's natural. Not relevant to what's right or wrong. So the natural argument, Pro should consider dropping. Just like people who were born with a missing a limb or partial dismemberment or even part of an internal organ. Was that natural to be born that way? How is a deformity unnatural? These argument is just being moved from goal post to something else by the Pro's side. Pro stated:The opponent repeatedly brings up this idea of "cumulative harm", which makes little sense. For instance, he argues that if we must think of a society in which everyone is homosexual, then see if a harm exists. While this may be a fun thought experiment, it is in no way indicative of real life. We are discussing whether homosexuality actually harms society, as it currently exists. For instance, I could have the resolution "Water is not harmful". Using the opponent's logic, we would look at an instance in which a person only drinks water. That person would soon starve to death and die, therefore water is harmful. Con's response: So that it's understood and Pro's has already admitted this. Pro may not want to admit or perhaps refuses to except that homosexuality is the demise to mankind excluding heterosexuality. That's why you make the topic statement clear and make every word clear. At least make an effort to clarify when warranted. That's why I used the word cumulative. I will used the word collectively.Maybe that will be better to understand. I'm aware that in a reality with fertile heterosexuality there will always be offspring. So then it's hard to see how homosexual acts can be a detriment or be harmful. Just like smoking cigarettes for only two years and quitting versus a twenty year smoker and most likely dying. It is the act, looking at it in a collective sense you see it's true destruction.So pro's best argument is to point out that as long as we hold the act at bay and put some restraints on it, it's ok. No, the cigarette smoking, the commitment of crimes, drug usage , nothing will ever justify doing these acts. So if we specify and say homosexuality is harmful to people in and of itself, it is.So as long as we have fertile heterosexuality existing ,homosexuality or a lion is harmful but we're protected with the safety net of fertile heterosexuality or a gated wall so that no harm or compromise comes to human survival. Pro stated: The opponent's only response is that "artificial insemination and surrogacy is a form of heterosexuality". This is patently false. A person's sexuaity refers to the type of mates the person is sexually attracted to. A homosexual can remain a homosexual and artificially impregnate a woman. Doing this does not change the homosexual's sexuality in any way.What's more, sexuality is a quality limited to living things. A procedure can never be given a sexuality, since it is not alive. Ergo, artificial insemination is neither homosexual or heterosexual -- since the very definition of sexuality does not allow for this.So again, my point stands. Even in the "worst case scenario" in which everyone is homosexual, reproduction can still occur thanks to medical science. (And it's worth mentioning,a homosexual is still capable of impregnating a woman the "old fashioned way". The homosexual might not enjoy the process, but it's still very easy to accomplish.So even in a world full of homosexuals and no modern medicine, reproduction can still occur.)Con's response:So what the pro's side is failing to realize is that once you look beyond the face value of things, you can see what they really are. So that's why it's important to think outside of the box.Think outside of what society or societies want you to support and go back to the logic. When we are referring to sexuality, break down the definition.What's really going on here?Sexuality has to do with sex, sexual organs and their functions. (character restriction stops here)
Debate Round No. 3
Cobalt

Pro

I'm not going to do any more work for the opponent. His desire to place his argument in one big block of text will only be detrimental to him when it comes to voting.

We'll go through the opponent's rebuttals in order.

Homosexuality: Is it natural?

The opponent's rebuttal here seems to be, "Pro wishes to cherry pick and just ignore research, testimonies and cases that point to how individuals were [in circumstances that led to their sexuality]"

The voters will note after a quick scan of the opponent's case that absolutely no research/testimony/cases were presented by the opponent. I cannot ignore what has not been produced. As it stands, the opponent hasn't backed up any of his claims with evidence, whereas I presented no less than 5 sources as evidence to my arguments.

Natural: Animal behavior

I argued that, since homosexuality is a behavior specific to animals, but not limited to humans, it was wise to look at homosexuality in animals in order to determine whether said behavior is natural.

The opponent argues that "non-person animals" and "people" differ on a large scale. While this is true, I already demonstarted that homosexuality is an animal behavior, not limited in scope to humans. As such, in determining whether the behavior is natural, it is best to look at the set of all animals, human or non-human.

Notably, the opponent doesn't actually refute any of the evidence or logic I presented on this point. He attempts to introduce a strawman (people differ from non-human animals) and argue that, rather than the issue at hand. While the opponent may prefer that we only talk about people, that does not make sense in the context of "the natural-ness of homosexuality".

Subpoint: Homosexuality is wrong, so it doesn't matter how many people do it. (Cultural Argument)

I argued that homosexuality has been prevalent across all cultures at every recorded point in time, thus indicating that it is a natural behavior, as opposed to a nurtured behavior.

The opponent argued that it doesn't matter how many people do something that's wrong, implying that "wrong" == "unnatural". I responded with an example of animal behaviors that we might consider "wrong", but that are no doubt natural.

The opponent seems to have forgotten his argument, as in the previous speech he said that "natural" and "morality" are two separate things. I completely agree -- that was my point. Just because you might few homosexuality as "wrong" doesn't mean it is "unnatural".

Regarding "deformity", the opponent seems to suggest that "using your genitals incorrectly (in his eyes) is a deformity". Again, no evidence backs this up. What's more, I've already demonstrated that a "deformity" is often the result of a natural process, thus separating the notions of "deformity" and "unnatural".

Conclusion: It's not even entirely clear what the opponent is arguing against. At many times, he seems to imply that homosexuality is natural, while implying the opposite at other times. Whatever the case is, I've demonstrated that the opponent's arguments on this topic don't have either the logic or evidence required to stand up to serious rebuttals.

I've demonstrated that homosexuality occurs very frequently in animals, thus implying that its frequent occurence in humans is equally as natural as its occurrence in, say, frogs. I've also looked at history to note that homosexuals have always existed in humanity, regardless of age or culture. Neither of the opponent's arguments against these points was adequate. So as it stands, homosexuality has been proven to be absolutely natural.

Cumulative Harm

The opponent presented this idea of "cumulative harm", which is basically explained by the thought experiment: "What if everyone was a homosexual."

I demonstrated that this thought experiment was completely incosistent with reality. The opponent's current response seems to indicate that he thinks this is ok because of the "way I worded the resolution". I'm assuming this was some attempt to be clever. Obviously, the term "society" in the resolution refers to actual society. Ie, the real world. The opponent's attempt to bind me to the arcane case in which "everyone is a homosexual" is not justified or helpful.

What's more, I already demonstrated that even if everyone was homosexual, the human race would not be threatened. (Medical aided reproduction.)

The opponent later likens homosexuality to cigarrette smoking. Ie, that only 10% of the population being gay is like smoking for two years, whereas 100% of the population is like smoking for a lifetime. Both are bad.

This analogy fails because a) current levels of homosexuality do not harm the population at all (as compared to smoking for two years and b) I've already demonstrated that the human population would not be threatened even if everyone were homosexual.

Medical aided contraception

I demonstrated that, even in the "worst case scenario", the human population would not be threatened by homosexuality since modern medicine allows for artificial pregnancy.

The opponent's response to this is literally, "So what the pro's side is failing to realize is that once you look beyond the face value of things, you can see what they really are." The next few statement are similarly as vague, ending with: "Sexuality has to do with sex, sexual organs and their functions."

The opponent ran out of room here (likely because he quoted nearly my entire argument), but I can only assume he had more to say. Because what he did say was some New Age quote about "seeing things like they really are" and an incorrect definition of "sexuality".

Note that sexuality is "the sexual habits and desires of people". [Merriam-Webster]. Clearly then, it cannot be said that "aritificial insemination" is somehow "heterosexual", since "artificial insemination" is not a "person". It is a procedure; it cannot have a sexuaity.

Wasted Resources

This argument was dropped by the opponent.

Conclusion

I demonstrated that homosexuality was natural by a) looking at its occurence in other animals and b) looking at is occurrence throughout history. The opponent's only notable response to this was a strawman, in which he argued that humans should be separated from animals in this discussion, even though homosexuality is an animal behavior (as I proved) as opposed to just a human behavior.

Because of these arguments, I have upheld that homosexuality is natural.

On its harm, the opponent argued that (it hurts the population), (it wastes resources) and (it goes against biological function).

I refuted the first argument by proving that, in the real world, homosexuality doesn't hurt the population. I even proved that if everyone was a homosexual, the population still wouldn't die out.

The opponent dropped the wasted resources argument in the previous round, meaning my defense still stands.

The opponent droppe the "against biological function" argument for the past two rounds, meaning my defense stands doubly as tall.

All things considered, I've adequately proved that homosexuality is not harmful to society.

Voters:

Arguments -- I've clearly presented stronger arguments in this case, defending both of my resolutional obligations. The opponent's responses have either been strawmen or inadequate. Arguments to Pro

Sources -- I've presented six sources thus far, while the opponent has presented none. Sources to Pro

Conduct -- The opponent repeatedly posts his argument as one large text block, which is obnoxiously hard to read. I have asked multiple times that he presents a more readable argument, but he refuses. Conduct to Pro.

S/G -- The opponent's spelling has been ok, but his grammar has made his already arcane text block completely illegible. S/G to Pro.

mall

Con

Pro stated:The voters will note after a quick scan of the opponent's case that absolutely no research/testimony/cases were presented by the opponent. I cannot ignore what has not been produced. As it stands, the opponent hasn't backed up any of his claims with evidence, whereas I presented no less than 5 sources as evidence to my arguments. Con's response:First off , don't trust me. Go do your own research. Secondly you have not provided any evidence to disprove anything in regards to this argument. Also with mentioning being able to disprove things, you can't disprove private, personal accounts. Like it was stated before, pro's side wishes for this subject of homosexuality to be always 100% natural in all cases so Pro continues to bring it back in the debate. Continues the rebuttals upon it. There is not even a disagreement that homosexuality is natural in those cases that are presented to be. So let's progress on from here. If there are any questions that Pro has, bring them forth. Pro stated: I argued that, since homosexuality is a behavior specific to animals, but not limited to humans, it was wise to look at homosexuality in animals in order to determine whether said behavior is natural. The opponent argues that "non-person animals" and "people" differ on a large scale. While this is true, I already demonstarted that homosexuality is an animal behavior, not limited in scope to humans. As such, in determining whether the behavior is natural, it is best to look at the set of all animals, human or non-human. Con's Response: The Pro's side has failed to show the logic in this or explain why this is a procedure to follow with animals(non-persons). No way of explaining in a principle sense, biological sense, scientific sense. Nothing has been cited as to why. Pro just continues to repeat that this is the procedure . This is the way or the criteria we go by just continuing on claiming these things. Pro stated:Notably, the opponent doesn't actually refute any of the evidence or logic I presented on this point. He attempts to introduce a strawman (people differ from non-human animals) and argue that, rather than the issue at hand. While the opponent may prefer that we only talk about people, that does not make sense in the context of "the natural-ness of homosexuality". Con's Response: Pro simply doesn't understand anything I brought to this argument. Maybe pro is just ignoring the fact that everyone and everything varies by nature. I laid that out in a very simple fashion. Which again,it's not clear how or why Pro has tied one organism to an organism. Namely between people and "animals'. Pro stated: I argued that homosexuality has been prevalent across all cultures at every recorded point in time, thus indicating that it is a natural behavior, as opposed to a nurtured behavior.The opponent argued that it doesn't matter how many people do something that's wrong, implying that "wrong" == "unnatural". I responded with an example of animal behaviors that we might consider "wrong", but that are no doubt natural. Con's Response: This is why I state and pretty much show at this point that comparing different species is a extremely weak argument. We'll refer to people as one species compared to another. Even scientists will report that there is that much DIFFERENCE to be classified into different species on account of genetics being incompatible for reproduction. So for instance, is a person just expected to do everything that is evaluated by the actions of another species? Is the person actions evaluated , judged, critiqued based on what another species does? Would anyone expect to be compared like that? What's supposed to be comparable next, intelligence? Using another species to justify the actions of another species is totally illogical. This was already made clear so text space will be saved. Pro stated:The opponent argued that it doesn't matter how many people do something that's wrong, implying that "wrong" == "unnatural". I responded with an example of animal behaviors that we might consider "wrong", but that are no doubt natural.The opponent seems to have forgotten his argument, as in the previous speech he said that "natural" and "morality" are two separate things. I completely agree -- that was my point. Just because you might few homosexuality as "wrong" doesn't mean it is "unnatural". Con's Response: Does the number of people engaging in a particular action or behavior make that particular action or behavior right or wrong? How do you evaluate or "consider" what's wrong for an 'animal" versus a person ? I went over numerous points about this natural subject. I just ask these questions to see how the logic is being established. Pro:Using genitals incorrectly in my eyes. Con: With genitals,What is biological incompatibility ? Pro Stated: Conclusion: It's not even entirely clear what the opponent is arguing against. At many times, he seems to imply that homosexuality is natural, while implying the opposite at other times. Whatever the case is, I've demonstrated that the opponent's arguments on this topic don't have either the logic or evidence required to stand up to serious rebuttals. Con's Response: So does Pro understand Con's position on this subject or not, that was last mentioned ? Does Pro finally understand? It seems again Pro refuses to believe that there are those homosexuals that have been influenced to be homosexual or heterosexual. So that hasn't been disproven. For the record , Con's side doesn't deny homosexual orientation not ever being natural at all. Pro stated:I've demonstrated that homosexuality occurs very frequently in animals, thus implying that its frequent occurence in humans is equally as natural as its occurrence in, say, frogs. I've also looked at history to note that homosexuals have always existed in humanity, regardless of age or culture. Neither of the opponent's arguments against these points was adequate. So as it stands, homosexuality has been proven to be absolutely natural. Con's Response: No Pro has not proven anything but maybe about what OTHER species do and has failed to tie it in. Basically the argument from Pro is, what's natural for another species is definitely natural for a different one. Even though it's understood that there are different natures among all things. A different nature will bring the same effects as another nature that varies or is different. Pro stated:The opponent presented this idea of "cumulative harm", which is basically explained by the thought experiment: "What if everyone was a homosexual." Con's Response: Clear misunderstanding right from jump street . I will leave it at that than stating is was completely assumptive. Cumulative has also more to do with accumulation with things progressing over time. Pro stated: I demonstrated that this thought experiment was completely incosistent with reality. The opponent's current response seems to indicate that he thinks this is ok because of the "way I worded the resolution". I'm assuming this was some attempt to be clever. Obviously, the term "society" in the resolution refers to actual society. Ie, the real world. The opponent's attempt to bind me to the arcane case in which "everyone is a homosexual" is not justified or helpful. Con's Response: Imagine if it were the reality that there was 100% homosexuality in the world. That would definitely wipe out Pro's position and by knowing that , it's made to believe that something on a large scale is not bad at ALL on a small scale. True, there is a size difference , however the essence or elements of the matter is still the same. Not to be coarse to anyone but a little cancer versus a big cancer is still cancer. I understand that we all would rather have a little illness if we can't be without it completely. At least that's what I hope for all of us. But hey , look to the individuals who never been sick akin to what could be a terminal illness or even a broken bone. Now if the large scale is same as the small scale, these very healthy individuals would have no reservations traded places with the ones with an ailment on an insignificant level.That's what being detailed here, the point is in the principle of the whole thing.But just like the principle and or the foundation of human life reproduction, it's thrown out by Pro it seems or it's marginalized, so is this principle.Pro Stated: What's more, I already demonstrated that even if everyone was homosexual, the human race would not be threatened. (Medical aided reproduction.)The opponent later likens homosexuality to cigarrette smoking. Ie, that only 10% of the population being gay is like smoking for two years, whereas 100% of the population is like smoking for a lifetime. Both are bad.This analogy fails because a) current levels of homosexuality do not harm the population at all (as compared to smoking for two years and b) I've already demonstrated that the human population would not be threatened even if everyone were homosexual. Con's Response: I already validated the situation that the human population is not at great harm for decreasing because of heterosexuality which Pro has supported to be so with the basic reproductive elements such as the sperm and egg. These elements come from the genitals associated with opposite genders. These are the components of heterosexuality working together. It's more than just desire and feeling. That's seen once looking past the face value. So how does correct sexuality justify homosexuality? Again it's the heterosexuality that's keeping all living persons afloat fundamentally. Pro can't see that because of the denial and refusing to accept that. Pro has accepted that cigarettes are harmful but when smoking at a non-cumulative level, Pro still agrees cigarettes are damaging but it's an exact parallel. As long as we have the majority or a good number of years not smoking it's not really a threat to the person's life.Be honest and stay consistent(character limit)
Debate Round No. 4
Cobalt

Pro

I'll briefly hit the opponent's arguments, since they are largely a rehash of his previous statements, then give final voters.

Opponent's Arguments

Evidence

The opponent, at one point, declared that I was "ignoring the evidence [implying that homosexuality as not natural, in some cases]." I responded by pointing out that the opponent had not submitted evidence of any kind, thus showing that I could not have been ignoring anything.

The opponent's response basically boils down to this: "Go do your own research."

While I certainly have, it should be noted that the whenever a debater makes a claim, it is his responsibility to back up that claim. It is never the responsibility of his opponent to do research for him, nor is it ever the responsibility of the voters to do this research. If the opponent makes a claim, then says evidence supports it -- it is absolutely his obligation to produce this evidence.

Failure to do that makes the argument essentially baseless. And seeing as the opponent (again) has failed to produce any evidence, his argument should be considered baseless.

Homosexuality, is it natural

The opponent agrees that homosexuality is largely natural, and asks if we can "progress on from here". Absolutely. Voters, please note I have upheld at least the first part of the resolution.

Naturalism via Homosexual behavior in animals

Despite the opponent agreeing that homosexuality is natural, he wishes to continue debating the point. This is fine.

I claimed that, since homosexuality is an animal behavior, it makes sense to look at all animals when determining if it is natural. The opponent's response argues that I've presented no logic as to "why this is the procedure", despite the fact that the very thing he quoted me on contained the logic behind it.

When we are investigating a phenomenon of any sort, we look at the phenomenon over all areas it affects. In other words, if we are studying how gravity works, we do not limit our investigation to Paris or Beijing. Rather, we look at as many areas where gravity exists as we can, so as to better understand its nature. If we were to ignore some areas, we might miss a fundamental portion of what makes gravity "gravity".

Similarly, when we look at the phenomenon of "homosexuality", we should look at the phenomenon in all areas it affects. Since it is a behavior, we should look at the group of all things that exhibit this behavior. As I proved (with evidence) in Round 2, homosexuality is found in many animals, thus meaning that homosexuality is not limited to humans. By only looking at homosexuality in humans, we are limiting the scope of our investigation further than the actual bounds of the phenomenon.

This is bad for the reasons mentioned in the gravity example, so it is best that we indeed extend our investigation of homosexuality to animals as well. And as I've proven, the fact that animals exhibit this behavior with such frequency indicates that it is a natural occurence, since it cannot be argued that man somehow forced 10% of animal species to begin exhibiting homosexual behavior.

And I realize that humans differ from non-human animals. This does not mean that we cannot make a comparison, given a commonality. It is also scientifically accurate to say that all people differ from one another; you and I are definitively different and unique. That does not mean that, when looking at the height of the average person, you should not include all people in your calculations.

Regarding Culture and its suggestion of natural Homosexuality

The opponent references this argument, but continues to argue against the previous point. As such, he has failed to rebut the "culture" argument and it should be flowed to me.

Again, the argument is this: Nearly every culture documented across all time has had homosexuality present to a lesser or greater extent. This implies that homosexuality is a natural occurence, as opposed to a nurtured occurence.

Cumulative Harm

The opponent hasn't brought up anything new here. He is still arguing that "in an imaginary world in which everyone is homosexual, homosexuality would harm society".

Not only does this analysis exist outside of the society we live in; I've already addressed this edge case. Even if everyone was homosexual, society would not be harmed. (Modern Medicine and Fertilization Argument)

Given that no amount of homosexuality is harmful to society for the medical reasons above, it cannot be said that a "small amount of homosexuality" is like "a small amount of cancer", or that it represents a small harm that is just not yet apparent due to its small size.

Medical Fertilization

The opponent goes back to claiming that "medical aided fertilization" is an act of heterosexuality.

I've already proven, with a definition, that sexuality (in this context) has nothing to do with reproduction and everything to do with preferences. A voter can easily see how a gay couple and a lesbian couple can come together to produce a baby with the help of a doctor. This one instance would disprove the notion that artificial insemination requires "heterosexuality".

Wasted Resources

This argument was again dropped. Flow to Pro.

Against Biological Function

This argument was dropped for a third time. Flow to Pro.

Conclusion

I've demonstrated that homosexuality is natural using the animal behavior argument and the culture argument. Even if one of these arguments fails, the other stands to prove my point. The opponent has not adequately disproven either point.

Given this, I have upheld the first part of the resolution

I also demonstrated that homosexuality is not harmful to society. The one argument he didn't drop against this point was his "cumulative harm" argument. I showed said argument to a) be unrealistic and b) to be untrue even if proven realistic. (Medical Fertilization)

Given this, I have upheld the second part of the resolution. Since I have upheld both ends of the resolution, I win today's debate.

Thanks for reading.
mall

Con

Pro stated:The opponent, at one point, declared that I was "ignoring the evidence [implying that homosexuality as not natural, in some cases]." I responded by pointing out that the opponent had not submitted evidence of any kind, thus showing that I could not have been ignoring anything. The opponent's response basically boils down to this: "Go do your own research."While I certainly have, it should be noted that the whenever a debater makes a claim, it is his responsibility to back up that claim. It is never the responsibility of his opponent to do research for him, nor is it ever the responsibility of the voters to do this research. If the opponent makes a claim, then says evidence supports it -- it is absolutely his obligation to produce this evidence. Failure to do that makes the argument essentially baseless. And seeing as the opponent (again) has failed to produce any evidence, his argument should be considered baseless.The opponent agrees that homosexuality is largely natural, and asks if we can "progress on from here". Absolutely. Voters, please note I have upheld at least the first part of the resolution. Con's Response: Pro's side has not disproved anything of homosexuality being an influence at all. It's not a claim and the pro's side knows it. Well aware of the research out there, but to fit the pro's views they cherry pick and remain very selective of the so called research they have done. Again, there is no debate that research has showed for what appears to be the fact that homosexuality has some natural root to it. That's why I said let's progress on because I don't see how it's debatable any further. Pro stated:Despite the opponent agreeing that homosexuality is natural, he wishes to continue debating the point. This is fine. I claimed that, since homosexuality is an animal behavior, it makes sense to look at all animals when determining if it is natural. The opponent's response argues that I've presented no logic as to "why this is the procedure", despite the fact that the very thing he quoted me on contained the logic behind it.
When we are investigating a phenomenon of any sort, we look at the phenomenon over all areas it affects. In other words, if we are studying how gravity works, we do not limit our investigation to Paris or Beijing. Rather, we look at as many areas where gravity exists as we can, so as to better understand its nature. If we were to ignore some areas, we might miss a fundamental portion of what makes gravity "gravity". Con's Response : So it took this amount of time for Pro to give some explanation of this line of reasoning. Finally we are getting somewhere. Still does not change anything about natures that differ. Now the question is, how do you tie one to the other? How do we see what's natural for one thing and not for another? See all that has to be explained. It has not been by the pro side, at least not substantially. Pro stated: Similarly, when we look at the phenomenon of "homosexuality", we should look at the phenomenon in all areas it affects. Since it is a behavior, we should look at the group of all things that exhibit this behavior. As I proved (with evidence) in Round 2, homosexuality is found in many animals, thus meaning that homosexuality is not limited to humans. By only looking at homosexuality in humans, we are limiting the scope of our investigation further than the actual bounds of the phenomenon. Con's Response: So what? What does an "animal"act have to do with a person? Is this monkey see, monkey do? That's good that you don't limit the scope. Always look at things in other perspectives, like from the con's side. But again, the correlation is not strong here. Between two different species it was already demonstrated how we meaning persons do what "animals" don't and vice versa. The foundation is just not verified here . Maybe it just what the pro side believes so maybe it can't be more detailed than that. It would be all different if we were just analyzing persons because there is a stark correlation there. Pro stated:This is bad for the reasons mentioned in the gravity example, so it is best that we indeed extend our investigation of homosexuality to animals as well. And as I've proven, the fact that animals exhibit this behavior with such frequency indicates that it is a natural occurence, since it cannot be argued that man somehow forced 10% of animal species to begin exhibiting homosexual behavior. Con's Response: Who said anything of forcing? It's clear by now we know what natural is. However it becomes a repetitive analysis in this debate of something doing what's in it's nature. What about insects? Is there behavior that has been analyzed there? What about protozoans and microscopic organisms? You might as well look at all. Has there been results from these other organisms to tell us why or about the things we do? Pro Stated:And I realize that humans differ from non-human animals. This does not mean that we cannot make a comparison, given a commonality. It is also scientifically accurate to say that all people differ from one another; you and I are definitively different and unique. That does not mean that, when looking at the height of the average person, you should not include all people in your calculations. Con's Response: Understandable, just that the connection between the two or more subjects is unclear.Pro stated:The opponent references this argument, but continues to argue against the previous point. As such, he has failed to rebut the "culture" argument and it should be flowed to me. Again, the argument is this: Nearly every culture documented across all time has had homosexuality present to a lesser or greater extent. This implies that homosexuality is a natural occurence, as opposed to a nurtured occurrence Con's Response:Not at all proof, but so what? What's the point. All that's being asserted here is pre-suppositional views of what it looks like or maybe abducted reasoning. Pro Stated:The opponent hasn't brought up anything new here. He is still arguing that "in an imaginary world in which everyone is homosexual, homosexuality would harm society". Con's Response:Pro wants it to be imaginary due to it not looking good for pro's position which was admitted in regards to that population factor. Imaginary hints or is associated with something false. But when population and reproduction was mentioned, it's very real that heterosexuality sustains us. That's very real and very factual indeed. See we are not just supposing , theorizing , hypothesizing , we are looking at things in full picture. In principle , in full value , in full or unlimited scope like Pro said. Deducting, deducing, concluding based from facts what happens as a thing accumulates. Just like the cigarette analogy, Pro sees the small picture but , it's near impossible to get the eyes open wide enough to see the big picture. Now of course as of now heterosexual behavior dominates the planet so that the latter doesn't occur. But that's no kudos to homosexuality because that's not sustaining us. Those points go to appropriate heterosexual behavior. So either way it's because of correct sexuality (heterosexuality) that flourishes persons to keep this so called "imaginary world" around which is a plus. Also it's shown what would happen when heterosexuality is not kept in the forefront. So what happens is , the facts get marginalized, they are called fictitious , imaginary to evade what's clearly true and irrefutable. It's admitted and agreed from both sides through these rounds that mankind will not thrive off of non-heterosexuality/surrogacy/insemination etc, all in one classification . Then the pro's side changes their view of what's seen as a problem to be a solution. Cutting down the population, reducing, cutting off lives even if it includes me and you is a solution to a problem. Pro Stated: Not only does this analysis exist outside of the society we live in; I've already addressed this edge case. Even if everyone was homosexual, society would not be harmed. (Modern Medicine and Fertilization Argument)Given that no amount of homosexuality is harmful to society for the medical reasons above, it cannot be said that a "small amount of homosexuality" is like "a small amount of cancer", or that it represents a small harm that is just not yet apparent due to its small size. Con's Response: Long story short, heterosexuality is the key to human life survival. Again please, be honest, when something is harmful , is it harmful with no respect to the amount? Is cancer cancer with no respect to the amount of cancerous cells? Are you sure your not just saying what we can live with? Is it really not bad or damaging or are we saying we can live with a minimum or small amount of damage? See that's the point logically. We have to realize what the situation truly is for what it is. We are just deciding to tolerate minimal damage over great damage to our health or whatever the case is. But the confusion comes in when we start saying minimal damage is not damage at all. Not apparent has nothing do with it actually existing or not. We're just talking about what we can see or be aware of when something is apparent or not. But if the doctor says this is only curable at the early stages which is not apparent but detected by thorough examination and medical technology , I hope we take action. See this is just another excuse to try and justify something that has insignificant harm. See how this works in principle?That's why it was pointed out early on, that due to the very definition of harm itself, it's contradicting when your argument or feelings are not to support harm in one degree but tolerate it in another. If harm means bad at any rate , how is it acceptable and satisfactory at all? It's what your willing to tolerate and be complacent with.So it's Pro as well as many others are trying to convince indirectly that a subject can very well be no good but accept it with little agony.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by David_Debates 1 year ago
David_Debates
Literally word salad.
Posted by migmag 1 year ago
migmag
this website is silly, everyone should be allowed to vote, putting limits on who can vote is very biased
Posted by mall 1 year ago
mall
CHECK OUT FOR MORE DEBATES, CURRENT EVENTS, DISCUSSIONS, ISSUES, SOLUTIONS, GO TO http://www.blogtalkradio.com...
Posted by Cobalt 1 year ago
Cobalt
Putting a space between two paragraphs like this,

only costs 2 characters, so don't worry about that. That's why my speech looks so much longer in comparison to yours, even thought they're both at the character limit.
Posted by Cobalt 1 year ago
Cobalt
For the love of god, please use paragraphs in your next speech.

Your argument is really hard to read in one big block. I've included a link to your argument with paragraphs. It's much more pretty, no?
Posted by Cobalt 1 year ago
Cobalt
Dead people don't have opinion, VR.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
All those sodomites who died of AIDS would radically disagree.
No votes have been placed for this debate.