The Instigator
duiven
Pro (for)
The Contender
Sui_Generis
Con (against)

If you're a man can you rape another man and say "no homo" to make it not gay???

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
duiven has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 580 times Debate No: 100011
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

duiven

Pro

Well if you're a guy and you have sex with another guy and say "NO HOMO" It's not gay because of that statement. The phrase "no homo" literally means that whatever it's being applied to in that context is not homosexual, or gay. I'm interested to see what con brings up.
Sui_Generis

Con

Thank you for offering this debate topic. As my opponent has not offered any formal argumentation in the first round, I'd like to elect to start in this first round by formally stating the resolution thusly:

Resolved: A man can rape another man, but by saying "no homo" can make the rape not gay.

My opponent will be arguing Pro, and I will be arguing Con. I look forward to a spirited, reasoned, and respectful debate. May we both learn something.
Debate Round No. 1
duiven

Pro

Well, thanks for accepting the debate. This is something I've wanted to debate for a long time. I'm arguing pro, so my argument is this:

When you rape a man and say no homo afterwards, it is not gay. For something to be gay, it has to be homosexual and consented by both people. If the rapist says no homo afterwards, it means he does not thing the act was homosexual, and therefore it was not gay.

It would only be gay if both people were homosexual and both accepted that it was homosexual. Otherwise, since one person said no homo, it means the act itself was not homosexual
Sui_Generis

Con

My opponent is seeking to prove the claim that, by the mere utterance of "no homo," an act can be absolved of any "gay" nature. This is plainly false, but I will labor to show why it is so.

Pro argues that for something to be gay, it must first be homosexual. Well, clearly two men having sexual intercourse is homosexual sex, from the definition.

Pro then continues, arguing that it must not only be homosexual, but consensual. Here is his first fault. For the victim of rape, certainly, there need exist no sexual attraction to his same sex in order to be the victim of a sexual assault or rape. Nor indeed, even for the rapist, as rape is primarily an act of domination, and only secondarily sexual aggression.

Pro argues that saying "no homo" afterwards means he does not think the act was homosexual. While this is not a necessary inference, but it is possibly true. And as I am seeking to prove that not only is it probable, but that it is impossible for a man to render an act "not gay" by saying "no homo" after the act in question, I must account for the case least favorable to the burden with which I am faced.

In my best efforts to come up with Pro's strongest case, we may imagine a rapist who is not gay, a rape victim who is not gay, and the sincerely-held belief by both that no homosexual act was performed.

I posit that due to the inescapable definition of "gay" (adj.)--of a sexual act: taking place between two people of the same gender--it is thus true that the sex act perpetrated by the rapist upon some poor helpless sap is inescapably gay, and that this fact renders moot any utterance or sincerely-held belief by the rapist, himself falling prey to the indominable force of linguistics.

For simile, claiming that saying "no homo" makes a sexual act between two members of the same sex "not gay" is about as effective as jumping off of a freeway overpass onto a road in front of an oncoming truck while yelling "no squasho" on the way down. Certain things about the world are created, destroyed, or given truth through words. (Consider "I agree to be bound by this contract" or "I plead guilty.") But by the same token, many more are the objective truths that may be known about this world -- falsified, verified, or disproven. It is in this way that Pro is wrong, and inherently unable to sufficiently prove his case.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Sui_Generis 11 months ago
Sui_Generis
Pikachu, there are many things that are true a priori simply because they are believed - "I am angry."
Posted by PowerPikachu21 11 months ago
PowerPikachu21
A statement is a statement. Saying "no homo" after same sex intercourse is either a joke, or a flat out lie. There's literally no way Pro could win this, unless the raping man is Jesus or something. But I doubt he'd be one to say "No homo."
Posted by Sui_Generis 11 months ago
Sui_Generis
Sure man why not. Bring it sexii boy.
Posted by sboss18 11 months ago
sboss18
Your resolution says "rape," but in your R1 post you say "have sex with." Which is it?
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.