Homosexuality is natural.

This debate is whether homosexuality is natural or not. I stand for PRO, that homosexuality is natural. First round is for acceptance.

I messaged you. I am already in process of this same debate with another user, Id rather not repeat it.
So here is a photograph of a feline requiring a dietary supplement of an American cheeseburger.

I messaged you saying that it will be cancelled.
I challenged you at your request, so its like asking to get invited to a party. This will give the party leader to cancel as he pleases. I did not ditch the obligation, I had an exact same obligation. For example, if I want to go run a marathon with a friend, and then want to go to a different one with a different friend because I'm not sure if it could do the first one, it would be pointless to do both. Just combine them. If you want to follow the debate, follow ScottyDouglas and my debate with him.
CON is unreasonable is being a strawman, a classic logical fallacy to make me look like I am an attacker pulled from quick and expanded assumptions.

[--Messaging--]

This is irrelevant, I actually denounced the act hinting it was rude in the PM.

[--My opponents analogy's--]

His analogy actually helps my case. So he says he challenged me, correct. He started the party. So his analogy is I asked, he invited me and he began. He then quit the party mid flight. If anything this is MORE rude then the way I put it, therefore his analogy helps my cause. So he made he party then left essentially saying he preferred the other party/person. In other words this helps my conduct case. Also as stated DDO usually thinks if an initiator starts a debate he should be able to finish it.

His second analogy is a marathon, but this application fails. Because our debate already began. So we are running, he gets a phone call and says I just got invited by someone else to another marathon bye. As this one initiated first it would seem rude to quit the first obligation in the name of another, especially when you are the instigator.

--> Both analogies show he did a conduct violation, mine does as well. Either way I win the conduct point.

[--Strawman?--]

A strawman is a fallacy that is informal that means I am misrepresenting ones position [1][2]. Calling someone out for a conduct violation is not misrepresenting your position. Your position is technically I want to leave this debate, I am in another. This is proven by your round 2 post. So I stated you want to quit the debate in the name of another, which is proven by your own words:

"I am already in process of this same debate with another user, Id rather not repeat it."

So no strawman was committed.

Reasons to vote CON --
Arguments: Dont vote on arguments in this debate, the argument point is the conduct point to con (or no points to either if you thought pro won). I won because his own arguments (analogies) proved my point, and mine did as well.
Sources: Me, I had them. He should have cited his strawman argument, as the way he explained it was false.
Spelling: Tied, we both had some mistakes. Though his format was poor, so give it to me (optional).
Conduct: This is replacing the arguments vote here, and I showed his argument proved my side. His concussions where false and mislead.

--> Vote should be 3 - 0 to CON. Or 4 - 0 con. Depending on your stance on the S/G.



Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www.nizkor.org...