The Instigator
bluesteel
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points
The Contender
KodyHarris
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points

Homosexuality is wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,927 times Debate No: 13316
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (33)
Votes (14)

 

bluesteel

Con

I am arguing that homosexuality is NOT wrong.

1. Not a choice

Homosexuality has a significant genetic component: According to Time Magazine, "It's a bit bewildering to watch the behavior of certain fruit flies at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. There, in the laboratories of biologists Ward Odenwald and Shang-Ding Zhang, strange things are happening inside the gallon-size culture jars. In some experiments, the female flies are cowering in groups at the top and bottom of the jars. The males, meanwhile, are having a party -- no, an orgy -- among themselves. With a frenzy usually reserved for chasing females, the males link up end-to-end in big circles or in long, winding rows that look like winged conga lines. As the buzz of the characteristic fruit fly "love song" fills the air, the males repeatedly lurch forward and rub genitals with the next ones in line. What's going on? Without a wink or a chuckle, Odenwald claims that these male fruit flies are gay -- and that he and Zhang made them that way. The scientists say they transplanted a single gene into the flies that caused them to display homosexual behavior. And that's very interesting, they assert, because a related gene exists in human beings." [1] In addition, according to New Scientists, "A gene has been discovered that appears to dictate the sexual preferences of female mice. Delete the gene and the modified mice reject the advances of the males and attempt to mate with other females instead." [2] In addition, many studies link being gay with pre-natal testosterone exposure (which would be determined genetically, since the fetus's genetics determine which hormones it manufactures). According to the Seattle Times, "In heterosexual women, the index and ring fingers are usually about the same length. In heterosexual men, the index finger is shorter, on average, than the ring finger. It's one of several differences between the sexes that seem to be set before birth, based on testosterone exposure. Breedlove found lesbians' finger lengths were, on average, more like men's. The same holds true for other traits, like eye-blink patterns and inner-ear function. 'Every time you find a body marker that gives an indication of prenatal testosterone exposure, lesbians on average are more masculine than straight women,' Breedlove said. This can't be a fluke.'" [3]

2. Homosexuality in nature

The same Seattle Times article points out that sheep breeders have long known that 8% of rams refuse to mate (because they are gay). A book by Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D., called Biological Exhuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity outlines all the different animal species that exhibit homosexual behavior. For example, 10% of silver gulls, 22% of black headed gulls, and 9% of Japanese macaques are homosexual. [4] The book is the first to document homosexual behavior on such a wide scale because the taboo nature of the subject led many previous biologists/naturalists to exclude observed homosexual behaviors from their published literature. Bahemihl documents 1500 species that display homosexual behavior. [5] If animals, which are not rational beings, engage in homosexual behavior, it must be "natural" and cannot be a "choice."

3. Anomalies

Approximately 5 "intersex" children are born in the United States each day. An "intersex" individual has components of both male and female sex genitalia. The doctors will almost always ask the parents to pick a gender and then remove the other gender's sex organs. The child will likely need hormone supplements for the rest of his/her life. This child would be considered "transgendered" since he/she has no natural gender. If this child engages in "heterosexual sex," is that gay, since he/she is technically both genders? If gender is so clearly determined at birth, why would God (or whatever moral agent my opponent chooses) allow such ambiguity? Is it not possible that a few people are born with the "wrong" sex organs (a male testosterone developed brain paired with a uterus, for example)?

I look forward to an interesting debate.

[1] http://www.time.com...

[2] http://www.newscientist.com...

[3] http://seattletimes.nwsource.com...

[4] http://www.bidstrup.com...

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[6] http://www.intersexinitiative.org...
KodyHarris

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for posting this debate. I would like to clarify a few things before proceeding. I do not resent homosexuals. Also, I do not believe in a creator, so I will not be basing this on pre-defined morality. I am simply attacking the poor structure of the argument itself.

There is an issue with the opponent's debate TITLE. "Homosexuality is "wrong"."
Wrong is defined as[1]:
1.not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed
2.not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice:
3.out of order; awry; amiss
4.not suitable or appropriate

Each **applicable** definition is actually in the favor of the Pro. How?
Definition 1:(not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed)
We may ask what morality truly is. We all agree on a general sense of right and wrong. There is no objective, complete and coded morality, but a very dynamic basis on which key components most agree. Homosexuality is not applicable within the standard, general moral code. There is a natural repulsion of homosexuality in standard morality. Homosexuality tended to be frowned upon by the majority until homosexuality became more prevalent (or outspoken). However, the laws of morality can change. But, to what standard to they change or become wrong? Well, a standard we apply is the one that we see in nature and biology. (More on this later)

Definition 2(not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice:):
Homosexuality IS unusual and is only becoming semi-prevalent until now. The majority of living things are NOT homosexual. Only a minority are, and the behaviors being performed are that of little complexity or attempt at reproduction. A fly has no cognitive awareness whatsoever and does not have the ability to recognize what it's doing to any degree of complexity. Also, this is not strict adherence to orientation, the flies may deviate to engaging in behaviors with the opposite sex.

Definition 3: out of order; awry; amiss
Order. Awry. Amiss.
Homosexuality is not intended in nature. A male is supposed to reproduce with the female. No males are supposed to together, neither females. It's like trying to say that two plugs or two sockets are meant for each other. This analogy is loose, but it is a representation of the correct, orderly method.

Definition 4: Not suitable or appropriate
Homosexuality is not appropriate.
[3]Appropriate: Suitable or proper in the circumstances
Need I touch on what's proper/SUITABLE** again?

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2]http://www.urban.org...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
bluesteel

Con

Burden of proof:
My opponent needs to state clearly under what moral code he considers homosexuality to be wrong. My opponent says, "Homosexuality is not applicable within the standard, general moral code." I'm not sure what the "standard, general moral code" is. He and I clearly have different personal moral codes. By this standard, morality seems to be inherently subjective, and thus un-debate-able, since everyone will have his or her own opinion already.

There are two generally considered views of morality: utilitarianism and the Kantian categorical imperative. Utilitarianism seeks to maximize societal welfare by finding a moral stance that results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The categorical imperative states that people may not be used as a means to an end but only as ends in themselves.

Something that does no harm to others (such as homosexuality) cannot be said to be wrong, from either a utilitarian or Kantian (categorical imperative) point of view.

In addition, that which is not a choice and is natural cannot be wrong, anymore than a sneeze can be said to be wrong (not a choice, is natural).

Addressing my opponent's case:

Definition 1:not in accordance with what is morally right or good

My opponent's main view of morality here seems to be twofold: "if a majority of people are against it, it's immoral" and "if it is ‘inherently repulsive' then it is immoral." Well his first approach actually merits a con vote because for the first time in history, a majority of Americans see homosexuality as "morally right," according to a 2010 Gallup poll. "For the first time since Gallup began measuring the "moral acceptability" of homosexuality, a majority of Americans support gay and lesbian relations. Last month's poll found 52 percent of adults consider homosexuality acceptable, while 43 percent find it morally wrong." [1] My opponent fails to prove his second standard that homosexuality is "inherently repulsive," but I assert that what is considered "repulsive" is actually due to societal conditioning, and the recent Gallup poll shows that a majority of Americans no longer consider homosexuality to be "morally repugnant."

Lastly, neither of my opponent's above standards is a good standard for morality. At one time in U.S. history, a majority of Americans found interracial marriage to be "inherently repulsive." That does not mean that denying interracial couples the right to marry was "morally right." A utilitarian or Kantian "does no harm" standard of morality would result in much more moral policies. By my opponent's standard, anything could be considered morally right. Consider the following example:

Three people are dropped on a deserted island – two are cannibals and one is not. The cannibals are the majority and do not consider eating human flesh to be "inherently repulsive." In this new society, cannibalism is considered to be morally right and although there is plenty of other food, the cannibals proceed to devour their short-lived island friend. This is clearly a bad standard for morality.

My opponent says at the end of his argument: "Well, a standard we apply is the one that we see in nature and biology." Under this standard, I win. I have proven that homosexuality is both seen in nature and determined by biology (genetics).

Definition 2: not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice

My opponent says: "The majority of living things are NOT homosexual." This is irrelevant since the majority of living things reproduce asexually. In addition, the minority/majority distinction is addressed above, but it bears mentioning here that societies and their morality are generally judged by how the majority treats the minority. A moral society would not deem someone to be an outcast simply for belonging to a minority. In addition, any society comprised of a majority of homosexuals would then view homosexuality as morally right, and heterosexuality as morally wrong, so this standard makes absolutely no objective sense.

My opponent talks about how files have "no cognitive awareness." However, Bonobo chimps clearly have "cognitive awareness" (they can recognize themselves in a mirror, learn language, etc), yet they engage in homosexual behavior. In addition, cognitive awareness is irrelevant. If homosexuality is genetic, then a homosexual's brain is telling him or her to fall in love with someone of the same sex. Fighting those natural urges would go against the "recommended practice" of following ones heart. The only way my opponent could prove homosexuality "wrong" is if he proved that it was not genetic and that homosexuals for some unknown reason "choose" to go against their own natural instincts.

Definition 3: out of order; awry; amiss

My opponent makes the classic: "the parts don't fit" argument. I think he is picturing two men jabbing at each other's private parts like two sword-fighters. However, the parts clearly fit considering that anal sex is not only entirely possible, but practiced by many heterosexual couples as well.

In addition, the clitoris is directly descended from the same fetal anatomy that forms the penis, since their structures are exactly the same - the clitoris is simply smaller and mostly internal. Biologists explain that the lack of testosterone in utero is what causes the penis in girls to instead develop into a clitoris. Thus, any stimulation of the clitoris by a heterosexual man should be considered "gay."

My opponent next makes the argument that entering into a relationship where reproduction is not possible is "wrong." This leads to the conclusion that any heterosexual relationship where one partner is sterile is wrong. It also means that any relationship involving two pre-pubescent people or one post-menopausal person is "wrong," since none of them are capable of reproduction.

My opponent says that if something is "not intended in nature," then it is wrong. I have already proven that homosexuality is clearly intended in nature since it is genetic and practiced by many animal species. However, if anything "not intended in nature" is wrong, the use of birth control is wrong, the use of electricity is wrong, and the wearing of clothes is wrong.

Lastly, homosexuality is a valid reproductive strategy. If it were not, the gene for homosexuality would have long ago died out of the gene pool. Robin Baker in his book Sperm Wars explains that homosexuals likely enjoyed a reproductive advantage because by experimenting with people of the same gender (whose bodies are more familiar and more readily accessible at an early age), the homosexual individual gained early sexual competence and confidence. This confidence/competence allowed bisexual or bi-curious homosexual men to reproduce more effectively and sleep with more women at earlier ages, thus passing on more of their genes.

Definition 4: Not suitable or appropriate

No real argument is made here by my opponent. I would actually argue the opposite: it is not suitable or appropriate to force someone who is homosexual to pretend to be straight. Who wants to doom many a poor spouse into a loveless marriage by forcing them to marry "pretend straight people?" It is both suitable and appropriate to follow your biological impulses, provided that they do no harm to other people.

My opponent has yet to present any legitimate moral code under which homosexuality should be considered wrong. Since it harms no one and is both natural and innate (not a choice), homosexuality cannot be said to be wrong under any existing moral standard.

[1] http://blackchristiannews.com...
KodyHarris

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for an impressive response to my argument.
However, my opponent still has a few holes in his logic, despite its appeal.
My opponent claims that he has "won" the validity of the apparent standard of homosexuality in nature. However, all he has done is noted a phenomenon in which animals of the same gender use each other for sexual stimulation. However, this is not an attempt at reproduction, neither is it a majority standard. The majority of animals and living beings are not sexually involved with the same sex. Neither are animals as complex and intelligent as humans nor have little control over their actions, while humans have complete control and awareness. Trying to compare the sexual behavior of humans and animals to prove a "right" is hopelessly flawed. If my opponent's logic is valid, he also, by default, must claim that necrophilia isn't wrong, since it is seen in animals [1].
My opponent also uses the analogy of previous discrimination on interracial marriage, which occurred when there was increasing racial variety in the United States. This discrimination is wrong, but relatively understandable due to the vast amount of prejudice on the minority races. However, humans of the same gender have been accessible to each other since the dawn of civilization, and homosexuality was volumes less prevalent in the previous eras than it is now [2]. We may conclude that homosexuality is indeed more prevalent now than it was previously now, and it is a movement that would not be considered acceptable relative to previous standards. If cannibalism became increasingly prevalent, would that make it right? No. If pedophilia became increasingly prevalent, would that make it right? No. Given these are two current standards that are considered wrong by the majority, we may conclude that homosexuality in the past versions of morality is indeed considered "wrong". Since morality is always changing, we can refer to a previous standard to determine what is right and wrong. If not, morality is entirely relative, and renders both sides of this argument useless.
Also, my opponent attempts to refute my biological argument with an attempt to show that anal sex is "natural". However, the anus is intended for the expulsion of waste, not for sexual means. Making this claim would imply that the eye socket or the ears also are valid points of sexual stimulation. In the intended process of sexual intercourse, it is the penis and vagina, not the penis and the anus, despite their common involvement. What is considered to be sexual is that in which intends reproduction. Love for one another does not determine homosexuality. To say that LOVE determines homosexuality is to claim that a father-son relationship or a brother-brother love relationship is homosexual. Clearly, we may conclude that homosexuality is not intended in the process of reproduction and is also hopelessly flawed.
Finally, I would like the tie some loose ends for additional infrastructure. Some of my opponent's foundations on the Kantian categorical imperative or Utilitarianism unfortunately work against him. Necrophilia doesn't "hurt" anyone, so should it be deemed morally right? No. However, it may be claimed that necrophilia has its repulsive elements, but in a "necrophilian" society, it wouldn't be considered right. However, it is currently deemed wrong, as was homosexuality in the past few decades. Logically, my opponents arguments fail to defend homosexuality's rightness, and merely attempt to claim phenomena in nature is an adequate evidence for homosexuality's moral validity.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://i421.photobucket.com...
Debate Round No. 2
bluesteel

Con

Responding to my opponent's most recent arguments:

Homosexuality in nature

My opponent corrects himself from the previous round and clarifies, "The majority of animals and living beings are not sexually involved with the same sex." This is true, but being in the minority does not make something "wrong." African Americans in the U.S. are a minority – is being black wrong? Jews are a minority in the U.S. – should being Jewish be considered wrong? There are more females than males in the U.S. – should being male be considered "wrong"? [1] We can't help being born black or being born male any more than someone can help being born gay, since it is caused by genetics.

Answering my opponent's necrophilia argument:

First, keep in mind that there is no proof that necrophilia is caused by genetics, but there is proof that homosexuality is caused by genetics. Therefore, necrophilia is a choice, but homosexuality is not.

Secondly, the Wikipedia article my opponent cites has 3 examples of necrophilia in animals. In one, a guy saw a male duck having sex with another dead male duck outside his window. In the second, a documentary apparently showed a male toad having sex with a dead female toad (it is likely that the male toad did not understand that the female toad was dead). The last example is that in the praying mantis species, the females often copulate with the males after biting off their heads.

The only species where necrophilia is widespread is the praying mantis, and biologists consider this "necrophilia" a valid reproductive technique, since the female eats the male and thus uses the male's body as sustenance for their children. The other 2 anecdotal examples of necrophilia hardly prove that the practice is normal or widespread in nature. Contrast that with evidence from the animal kingdom on homosexuality: 8% of rams, 10% of silver gulls, 22% of black headed gulls, and 9% of Japanese macaques are gay (will mate only with the same sex). Remember, Bruce Bahemihl found that homosexuality is widespread in 1500 animal species.

Next, my opponent repeats his argument that animals "don't have control over their actions," but humans do. First of all, I prove that although homosexuals can control their actions, they cannot control whom they fall in love with, since it is genetically determined which gender someone will be attracted to. Secondly, my opponent never responds to my argument that Bonobo chimps definitely can control their actions and are cognitively aware, but they engage in homosexual behavior as well.

Lastly, remember my argument that "what does no harm to others cannot be morally wrong." Homosexuality does no harm to others. In contrast, necrophilia could be said to do harm since desecrating a corpse could traumatize grieving family members. In addition, there are serious health concerns involved in exhuming and copulating with corpses. Deadly diseases could easily be spread if necrophilia were widely practiced.

My opponent next says that bans on interracial marriage were "understandable." He seems to be arguing again that anything the majority believes, even racism, is justified. This seems absurd and contradicts his own claim that cannibalism should never be considered morally right even if cannibals are the majority.

Answering his argument that homosexuality is becoming more widespread:

First, his source doesn't show this at all; the chart he cites actually shows that attitudes towards homosexuality have become much more accepting over time. His own source shows that a majority of people in 7 different countries now accept homosexuality as morally right. Secondly, even if he could cite a source showing homosexuality is more widespread it is only because homosexuals are more likely to be honest and practice homosexuality openly in modern times because it has become more acceptable.

He next says that cannibalism and pedophilia should not be considered "right" just because they become more widespread. I agree. But both of the above do more harm than good and would be disallowed by a utilitarian morality. Eating people is unnecessary where there are other sources of food and it is murder, and molesting defenseless children does a great deal of psychological harm to the children.

Anal sex:

My opponent says, "the anus is intended for the expulsion of waste" and sex using the anus is thus "wrong." However, the penis and vagina are also used for the expulsion of waste (namely urine); this does not exclude them as sex organs.

The eye socket is obviously not a viable sex organ, as my opponent suggests, since copulating with the eye socket would harm the eye. The ear is also not a viable sex organ considering that most penises would not fit into an ear, and those that could might cause damage to the inner ear.

Lastly, keep in mind that the mouth's lack of reproductive potential does not exclude it as a sex organ for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Love:

My opponent says that love and sex are not inter-linked, and he cites the example of the love between a father and his son. However, there is a difference between romantic love and familial love or "brotherly love." Romantic love does involve sexual desire. Homosexuals cannot help who they are sexually attracted to and also cannot help who they fall in love with (romantic love), since both of these are genetically determined.

Reproduction:

My opponent next repeats his argument that homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other. However, he never answers the argument that this reproduction standard of right and wrong would make relationships with infertile people "wrong" and would make any relationship with a post-menopausal woman "wrong." He also never answers the argument from Robin Baker that homosexuality is a valid reproductive strategy because homosexuals can gain early sexual confidence and competence that bi-sexual and bi-curious men could then use to reproduce more successfully.

My opponent says, "What is considered to be sexual is that in which intends reproduction." Sexual intercourse using contraceptives (condoms, The Pill) would not be considered "sexual" under this definition since it does not "intend reproduction."

Round summary:

There are three main reasons to vote con:

1. Homosexuality does no harm

Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone. Under a utilitarian morality, it is thus impossible to conclude that homosexuality should be considered "wrong."

2. Banning homosexuality is immoral

Under a utilitarian morality, disallowing homosexuality would do more harm than good. It would force homosexuals to deny their genetically determined natural impulses and instead marry someone who they did not truly love (romantic love). This harms both the homosexual individual, who must live an unhappy life devoid of true love, and also dooms his or her spouse as well to an unhappy life of unrequited love. The benefits of reproduction hardly outweigh these harms.

3. Majority support

Under my opponent's own standard of morality – that it is determined by what society in general deems "right" or "wrong" – you must vote con. Remember the 2010 Gallup poll and my opponent's own Photobucket evidence proving that a majority of Americans believe that homosexuality is morally permissible.

Since homosexuality does no harm, is natural, and is not a choice, it cannot be said to be any more "wrong" than a sneeze.

[1] http://www.indexmundi.com...
KodyHarris

Pro

Responding to my opponent's rebuttals:

Not a Choice = Wrong? :

My opponent claims that if something isn't a choice, it isn't wrong. This is absolutely not the case and is not a valid argument whatsoever. There are many things that aren't choices that are wrong. Some people are born psychopaths. Some people are born with things that they can't help but it does not make them right.

Homosexuality not a choice:

My opponent fails also in claiming that homosexuality is not a choice. Homosexuality is a choice. The action of copulating with the same sex is a choice. It is not uncontrollable. Not only is the action wrong, but the desire wrong, as shown in previous arguments that my opponent has failed to adequately refute, given his claims that the anus is a sex organ and that homosexual intercourse is proper. HomoSEXuality is the mere sexual involvement. You may be a male, and love a brother or a father, but that does not make it a homoSEXual relationship. Homosexuality is determined as the sexual attraction, not the love.

Necrophilia:

My opponent also implies that necrophilia isn't common, thereby attempting to refute my necrophilia analogy. He is missing the point of the argument. There are many different animals that engage in necrophilia and other strange sexual activities that could be considered wrong for humans. The point of the analogy is to show that just because things happen among animals makes it RIGHT for humans. Animals are typically barbaric and ruthless. Behaviors that occur among animals may not serve as basis for what is considered to be right.

Sex Organs:

My opponent tries to make the claim that the mouth and anus are sex organs. They are not, as seen by the definition of sex organ[1] and their zero involvement with the reproductive process. This entire argument collapses.

Love:

My opponent establishes zero criteria for the difference between romantic and familial love. This is entirely relative and perceptions of love differ from person to person. Unfortunately, this argument collapses as well, due to his lack of criteria. Homosexuality is not defined as the romantic love, and romantic love is not in any way connected to sexual intercourse, given there are asexual humans that are engaged in a romantic relationship with the other [3].

Infertility

My opponent makes the claim that through my logic, sex with an infertile partner is wrong. The definition for sexual intercourse says otherwise [2]. Anything other than what is given in the definition is pleasure or recreation, rather than sexual intercourse. He doesn't make any VALID claims backing homosexuality as a RIGHT reproductive strategy. This misses the point of the argument.

Homosexuality's preparation for reproduction:

I could make the same claim that necrophilia is a valid reproductive "strategy" because it prepares for sex with a live woman. This is a valid strategy, but it is NOT a valid strategy that is morally right. Does it make necrophilia right? No! This entire argument fails beyond repair given these circumstances. This claim does not meet the terms of argument.

My opponent finally gives three reasons to vote for con:

1. Homosexuality does no harm

Homosexuality does "harm" to those who oppose it. It "harms" a parent of a child who witnesses something that is not akin to the parents desires. Homosexuality may offend and harm many people, depending on their beliefs. Just because it doesn't "harm" people doesn't make it right. Private use of child pornography may not harm anybody, but it does not make it right. Homosexuality also serves as a dysfunctional family structure, as the values and qualities of a family need balance given by the opposite sexes. This is not a valid reason to vote and the reason given is inadequate.

2. Banning homosexuality is immoral

The claim of something being wrong does not imply a ban. I do not suggest that homosexuality is to be banned. I claim that it is not a valid reproductive process according to nature's standards. I do not oppose homosexuality; I just oppose its validity as a reproductive strategy. To claim that just because something is wrong means it should be banned. This is also an invalid reason to vote, given the invalid leap between the argument and the resolution.

3. Majority support

My opponent commits the bandwagon fallacy. If you vote based on this reason, you vote out of fallacy.

Reasons to vote pro:
1. Homosexuality is wrong due to nature's standards, although it may not harm anyone

2. Homosexuality isn't a valid reproductive strategy

3. Homosexuality is a new movement that opposes the moral standards of past eras

I thank my opponent for an interesting and exciting debate, and I hope to debate him on other subjects as well.

[1]http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
[2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KodyHarris 4 years ago
KodyHarris
" romantic love is not in any way connected to sexual intercourse"

I don't know how I managed to write those words.
Posted by TallIndianKid 6 years ago
TallIndianKid
RFD:
Although the con inspired horribly disgusting images of things like ear sex, I vote con.

The con first refuted all of the affirmative's definitions.
Then the con refuted all of the affirmative's new contentions.

At the end of the debate, the con clearly showed how homosexuality is found in nature, is natural, and is not a choice.

Thus i vote negative.
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
"It's not that your conduct was bad; it just wasn't as good as Kody's. He said please and thank you, you said "burden of proof."

That's completely ridiculous. You only deduct conduct points if there is a an actual violation (ie. name calling, forfeiting a round, bait & switch tactics, plagiarizing, etc).
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
Ohhh, okay. Thanks for telling me.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
It's not that your conduct was bad; it just wasn't as good as Kody's. He said please and thank you, you said "burden of proof:"
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
Can someone explain to me what I did to lose all the conduct points. I'm seriously really curious.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
@beem0r

LOL, I love your latter solution. Subtract out the vote in your head.

Everything else you say is just a reason the voting period should last indefinitely. Although, point taken. If I refuse to vote for myself on a limited voting period debate, I better be winning by more than 7 points.
Posted by beem0r 6 years ago
beem0r
Scenario:

After a debate between Person X and Person Y, neither X nor Y vote for themselves.
The debate has a 2 week voting period.
As the end of the voting period nears, the score is 42 X, 45 Y.
X then throws in a self-vote, giving him the edge.
The debate finishes the voting period, and X wins because of his own vote.

This is just as bad as the debates where one member's account is not verified [mine isn't!]. Voting for oneself is a precautionary measure, preventing the type of scenario above. If the contender doesn't self-vote right away, they have to keep coming back to check if their opponent self-voted.

Of course, in either case, if your opponent self-votes and you do not, you can simply subtract out their vote in your head to see what the score would have been, so it's really not tragic.
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
"Other former debate competitors like m93 and myself are going to find the practice distasteful and won't do it."

I'm a former debate competitor and I still do it. Of course, if my opponent doesn't, chances are I won't either unless it's an absolute blow out/multiple round forfeit, etc.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
@beem0r

As the debate m93samman posted intelligently points out: some members are from other countries and can't vote.

Other former debate competitors like m93 and myself are going to find the practice distasteful and won't do it.

So the points won't always cancel.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
bluesteelKodyHarrisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Pandora9321 6 years ago
Pandora9321
bluesteelKodyHarrisTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Elmakai 6 years ago
Elmakai
bluesteelKodyHarrisTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by feverish 6 years ago
feverish
bluesteelKodyHarrisTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by TallIndianKid 6 years ago
TallIndianKid
bluesteelKodyHarrisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by shadowstation 6 years ago
shadowstation
bluesteelKodyHarrisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by annhasle 6 years ago
annhasle
bluesteelKodyHarrisTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
bluesteelKodyHarrisTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Greg_M 6 years ago
Greg_M
bluesteelKodyHarrisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Vote Placed by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
bluesteelKodyHarrisTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21