Homosexuality is not a decision, it is natural
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
| Started: | 6/30/2012 | Category: | Society |
| Updated: | 11 months ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 1,161 times | Debate No: | 24508 |
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (1)
 Pro Topic The topic of this debate will be: "Homosexuality is not a decision, it is natural". The pro will be arguing that homosexuality is not a decision, and that it is natural. The con will be arguging that homosexuality is not natural, and optionally argue that it is a decision(However this leads on if it is not natural). Definitions Decision: "the act or process of deciding; determination, as of aquestion or doubt, by making a judgement" [1] Natural: "existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): anatural bridge." [2] In this debate, we will be referring to natural as something that is formed by nature. Making a decision does not constitute being formed by nature. Debate Structure Round 1: This round will be used for acceptance of the debate and/or for any definitions either side would like to make prior to their arguments. Round 2: In this round, both sides will state their arguments. Neither side will respond to each others arguments directly. Round 3 and 4: In this round, both sides will respond to/rebutt their opponents arguments. No additional arguments may be made during this round, only response to pre-existing arguments. Round 5: In this round, both the pro and con will conclude their arguments. No additional arguments may be made. Debate Rules Burden of Proof: The burden of proof is on both the pro and the con. Pro must prove that homosexuality is natural and is not a decision, whereas Con must prove that homosexuality is unnatural, and optionally that it is a decision(However this follows if it is unnatural). Respect: Both the pro and con must be respectful to each other, and must refrain from any insulting, discriminating or harmful remarks that are not directly relevant to the debate. Evidence: Provision of evidence will be required for any kind of statistical/scientific finding. All evidence mentioned or used during the debate must be cited or else the opposition will not be required to respond to the particular argument in which the evidence is used. Listing of Arguments: It is required that when making an argument, that it be labeled and optionally numbered. If an argument made by either the pro or con is not able to be clearly referenced, misinterpretation will be the fault of the person who made the argument. In other words, number/name your arguments so clarity can be ensured. References (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) http://dictionary.reference.com...  Con I'm very sorry I messed up your debate like this. Truly! |
 |
|
Pro *VOID* |
 |
|
Pro |
 |
|
Pro Con |
 |
|
Pro Con |
 |
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by waterskier 11 months ago
| ADT_Clone | Chelicerae | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: |  | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: http://i.qkme.me/358ttg.jpg
2: I am going to argue for something that I do not believe in, and find morally reprehensible.
3: Like wiploc said, we asked for a tie.
Not a type of god that I would like to exist.
My only dispute with that I suppose would simply be, if it's not causing harm, what makes it "bad"? Because some guy up in the clouds says so?
Sorry, but if it's not causing harm, I see absolutely no reason why it should be persecuted. In fact, persecuting something that causes no harm in of itself generates harm, making the persecution of that act the sole cause of harm in that situation, and the other party innocent and worthy of protection. God be damned. If He is a god who likes to persecute people who aren't causing harm simply because they don't match up with his "plan", then He is not a god worth worshipping.