The Instigator
SeventhProfessor
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
NightofTheLivingCats
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

Intemediate's Debate Competition R1: Sexualiy is a sense.

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 6 votes the winner is...
SeventhProfessor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,170 times Debate No: 42471
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (6)

 

SeventhProfessor

Pro

As instigator, I am making the claim that sexuality is a sense, similar to sight, pressure, and hunger. I have full BoP.

Definitions:

Sense- any system that consists of a group of sensory cell types that respond to a specific physical phenomenon and that corresponds to a particular group of regions within the brain where the signals are received and interpreted
http://www.todayifoundout.com...

Sexuality- the sexual habits and desires of a person.
http://www.learnersdictionary.com...

First round for acceptance only.
NightofTheLivingCats

Con

Target sighted.
Debate Round No. 1
SeventhProfessor

Pro

Before I start my arguments, I want it to be clear that we are talking about the actual senses, not the five Aristotle came up with. Now, onto the arguments.

It fits the definition
Sexuality is, or at least many agree, determined biologically [1]. Assuming this is true, the most likely case is that a group of cells respond to various sexual acts in different ways. While the cells could possibly not be sensory, there are several reasons to believe they are, which will be addressed in the next point.

Sexuality works similarly to other senses
Senses and sensory cells both have many qualities shared with sexuality. For example, the sense that affects colors people can see is weaker or nonexistent within 5% of men, compared to .5% of women [2]. Sight overall, however, is almost equally common among men and women. According to a recent study [3], about 60% of women are attracted to women, while most of this group is also attracted to men. While it is unknown how many men are attracted to other men, estimates range from 10-20% [4]. Sexual attraction towards both genders, or bisexuality, is 3-6 times more likely in men than women. Making the safe assumption that sexuality is not a choice, we could compare bisexuality to "complete sight", attraction to one sex to "color blindness", and asexuality to "blindness". Further comparison can be made when looking at the senses of hunger and thirst. When people desire food and water, they feel hungry and thirsty, respectively. If they go too long without these sources, the mild annoyance turns into a physical pain. Something similar happens when someone desires sexual activity, and feel "horny". The similarities between sensory cells of widely known senses and sexual attraction show that sexuality is most likely a sense.


1. http://www.slate.com...
2. http://menshealth.about.com...
3. http://www.yourtango.com...
4. http://www.gallup.com...
NightofTheLivingCats

Con

To remind people. If I rebut Seventh' s arguments, I win.

It fits the definition
Sexuality is, or at least many agree, determined biologically [1]. Assuming this is true, the most likely case is that a group of cells respond to various sexual acts in different ways. While the cells could possibly not be sensory, there are several reasons to believe they are, which will be addressed in the next point.

Except that it doesn't. If you jab out my eyes, blow out my ears and cause widespread nerve damage, I have no way to find out if a person standing in front of me is a man or a women. But does that change my sexuality? No.

Really, this is sight. You can't have 'two' senses in 'one'. I will throw down a bet that if my opponent can show evidence of blind people being attracted/turned on.

The question to ask: What is the PHYSICAL stimuli?

Sexuality works similarly to other senses

Yes.

Or, it manifests itself as sight(Taste and touch don't make much sense at all and hearing or smell don't make sense in context.


...Making the safe assumption that sexuality is not a choice, we could compare bisexuality to "complete sight", attraction to one sex to "color blindness",


Interesting.

and asexuality to "blindness".

Are you saying that if I blind myself right now, I'll become asexual? It's a nice analogy, but it's not proof. For this reason, this blows the argument out of the water.



Further comparison can be made when looking at the senses of hunger and thirst. When people desire food and water, they feel hungry and thirsty, respectively. If they go too long without these sources, the mild annoyance turns into a physical pain. Something similar happens when someone desires sexual activity, and feel "horny". The similarities between sensory cells of widely known senses and sexual attraction show that sexuality is most likely a sense.

I rebut this in my first tangent.
Debate Round No. 2
SeventhProfessor

Pro

"Except that it doesn't. If you jab out my eyes, blow out my ears and cause widespread nerve damage, I have no way to find out if a person standing in front of me is a man or a women. But does that change my sexuality? No.

Really, this is sight. You can't have 'two' senses in 'one'. I will throw down a bet that if my opponent can show evidence of blind people being attracted/turned on."

I was not saying sexuality is reliant on other senses, my argument is that it is separate, and independant of other senses. As evidence for blind people being sexually turned on, I present this video:


"Or, it manifests itself as sight"

I'm not sure how this is relevant to my arguments, but sexuality does not manifest itself as sight. If I were to blind you, you could still be sexually active and have sexual feelings.

"Are you saying that if I blind myself right now, I'll become asexual? It's a nice analogy, but it's not proof. For this reason, this blows the argument out of the water."

Not at all, I believe you completely misunderstood my argument. What I'm saying is similar to if I argued that hearing is a sense, and say deaf in that situation is comparable to blindness to the seeing sense. Again, I am not suggesting that sexuality is dependent on any sense.
NightofTheLivingCats

Con


I was not saying sexuality is reliant on other senses, my argument is that it is separate, and independent of other senses. As evidence for blind people being sexually turned on, I present this video:

Then what is the PHYSICAL trigger? If I literally have no senses, there would be no way that your BOP can be confirmed. In other words, can I be turned on when I am blind and cannot feel? No, but you are still heterosexual/homosexual.


I'm not sure how this is relevant to my arguments, but sexuality does not manifest itself as sight. If I were to blind you, you could still be sexually active and have sexual feelings.

Ok.

Not at all, I believe you completely misunderstood my argument. What I'm saying is similar to if I argued that hearing is a sense, and say deaf in that situation is comparable to blindness to the seeing sense. Again, I am not suggesting that sexuality is dependent on any sense.


Then your argument is a red herring.


You dropped my question. I would like for to you answer it. Here it is:

The question to ask: What is the PHYSICAL stimuli?

"looks" is not the answer either. Your own video shown that you are the same sexuality without sight. The same thing could be said with the other 4.


With that I urge voters to vote for NIGHTCATS, as Seventh has not defended the BoP.
Debate Round No. 3
SeventhProfessor

Pro

If I literally have no senses, there would be no way that your BOP can be confirmed. In other words, can I be turned on when I am blind and cannot feel? No, but you are still heterosexual/homosexual.

Correct, sexuality is not caused or affected by the currently known senses. While you can be turned on by other senses, it is not required to desire sexual activity. The other senses help sometimes, but are not completely necessary. Therefore sexuality operates independently of the other senses, and is either a completely different sense, or something different altogether.

Then your argument is a red herring.

No, it is not. If I were saying blindness, deafness, numbness, or other absenses of senses caused asexuality, it would support the idea that sexuality is not a sense. But, since they don't affect it, we can determine that sexuality is completely separate from all currently known senses. I was using the comparison to show similarity with other senses. Hearing is to deafness as sight is to blindness. Sight is to blindness as sexuality is to asexuality. Neither of these sentences imply any cause or effect, but simply a comparison to show similarities.

"looks" is not the answer either. Your own video shown that you are the same sexuality without sight. The same thing could be said with the other 4.

Yes, looks is not the answer. If it was, sexuality would not be a sense, it would be a direct byproduct of the pre-existing sense, sight. It is also not directly related to any of the other currently known eight, which supports the idea it is a completely separate function from the other senses. The physical stimuli is a completely separate process in the brain, for a completely separate sense.
NightofTheLivingCats

Con

Correct, sexuality is not caused or affected by the currently known senses. While you can be turned on by other senses, it is not required to desire sexual activity. The other senses help sometimes, but are not completely necessary. Therefore sexuality operates independently of the other senses, and is either a completely different sense, or something different altogether.

And my question?

No, it is not. If I were saying blindness, deafness, numbness, or other absences of senses caused asexuality, it would support the idea that sexuality is not a sense.

Ok.

But, since they don't affect it, we can determine that sexuality is completely separate from all currently known senses.

So what you are saying is that there is a trigger. What is the trigger?

I was using the comparison to show similarity with other senses. Hearing is to deafness as sight is to blindness. Sight is to blindness as sexuality is to asexuality. Neither of these sentences imply any cause or effect, but simply a comparison to show similarities.

kfc

The physical stimuli is a completely separate process in the brain, for a completely separate sense.

Vague?

I would disagree with the word 'stimuli' because what your saying isn't physical. It's a Neural process, which dont just happen. I also say that the 'process' is sexuality/thought/what-have-you.


I urge a vote for NIGHTCATS, as Pro have hove proven his end of the bargin. He has not shown a phisical link needed to prve his case.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NightofTheLivingCats 3 years ago
NightofTheLivingCats
Is the Title even part of S/G?
Posted by SeventhProfessor 3 years ago
SeventhProfessor
My computer's falling apart, and a lot of the keys are sticky.
Posted by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
Anybody notice that the title is spelled wrong? In 2 places?
Posted by NightofTheLivingCats 3 years ago
NightofTheLivingCats
Fvcking votebombs. Lucky should know better.
Posted by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
I must agree with Ore on this one. Seventh failing to reach his BOP should mean a Cats win.
Posted by NightofTheLivingCats 3 years ago
NightofTheLivingCats
Lucky, Seventh had the BoP.
Posted by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
I have to agree with Roy about the votes. Con made a very clear and solid set of definitions which clearly outline his BOP.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Anyone voting should read Pro's fist reference on the meaning of "sense." Con's argument was that sexuality was not sensing an independent physical quantity as required by the definition, and that's a valid argument. Putting in links means nothing if the sources do not support the arguments.
Posted by NightofTheLivingCats 3 years ago
NightofTheLivingCats
lol oops.

inb4 loses
Posted by yay842 3 years ago
yay842
mmm, Con, dat las minut speling eror
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
SeventhProfessorNightofTheLivingCatsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources go to Pro, for using them. Con did have some arguments that could have benefited from sources, so not using them does hurt her. Arguments is clearly Con, but not for anything that Con did. Pro simply failed to even get close to his BOP. His own definition, "any system that consists of a group of sensory cell types that respond to a specific physical phenomenon" he has the BURDEN to show the group of "sensory cell types" (never did) and the "specific physical phenomenon" (also never did). I am also giving Con the conduct because she repeatedly asked for the physical link and Pro would not answer, despite it being a key part of his BOP.
Vote Placed by Lucky_Luciano 3 years ago
Lucky_Luciano
SeventhProfessorNightofTheLivingCatsTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: All of Night's arguments are mitigatory defense. However, many of them are non-arguments, and leave Seventh with offense in the debate. Furthermore, the defense he actually presented was misrepresenting Pro's argument and properly responded to. Arguments to Pro. Conduct to Pro because Night proves disrespectful all the way from the beginning where he refers to Pro as a target to the end when he argues "kfc." Spelling and Grammar to Pro as it was obvious Con did not use spell check. Sources to pro because he actually provided sources, and they were relevant to his position.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
SeventhProfessorNightofTheLivingCatsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's definition of "sense" demands that there be response to a "specific physical phenomena." His definition came from an article that listed many senses defined this way, each with the physical phenomena that would provoke the sense independent of other senses. For example, physical dehydration provokes the "sense" of thirst. Con correctly argued that there is no physical phenomena independent of the other senses that provokes sexuality. Pro couldn't come up with a physical stimulus independent of the other senses. Many instincts are provoked by other senses (e.g., fear) but that doesn't make them independent senses. Pro found no scientific source that agreed with his argument.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
SeventhProfessorNightofTheLivingCatsTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Here, I believe that the debate was more of a 'what if' than rather proving the points, as pro failed to meet a successful BOP. Therefore, arguments goes to con, who wins if pro did not successfully prove his BOP. However, seventh was the only one to even use a link, while con's assumptions were based on empty thoughts, so pro wins the reliable sources. Spelling and grammar was O.K throughout, but things got a bit bad in the last few sentences for con. But since both did pretty good early and in middle, I will not subtract any points for con. As for conduct, I believe that PRO wins due to con's kfc comment at the end, which could also be seen as a concession. Plus, it didn't really look like she tried on the rebuttals and rather went on to prove that pro did not meet his BOP, which is true, but not a good anchor for con to set her debate on. That being said, I think that pro should win, and would've won if I decided not to be nice and not subtract any points for the S&G at the end.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
SeventhProfessorNightofTheLivingCatsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: This felt more like a question-and-answer session than a debate. Con makes "arguments" like kfc. My only response to Con is: kfc. Those are non-arguments that fail to actually rebut Pro's points. I also find such commentary to detract from the debate and to devalue it as a serious activity that requires thought and analysis. Args and Conduct go to Pro. Due to Pro having all the offense, I vote Pro.
Vote Placed by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
SeventhProfessorNightofTheLivingCatsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Trying to prove that sexuality is a sense is like trying to prove shoe is a type of leather - all semantics. On arguments, Con at first completely misunderstood the analogy Pro was making, but finally got around to it by R4; Pro showed that sexuality has stimuli and reaction: not having sex and hornyness; Pro also made a comparison of sexuality to hunger which was listed as a "sense" in Pros first source.