The Instigator
midnightnomad
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlternativeDavid
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Is Homosexuality more nurture than nature?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
AlternativeDavid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,102 times Debate No: 72413
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

midnightnomad

Pro

**NOTE**: This is my first debate and has been inspired by recent arguments with personal friends. Before making this debate, I have reviewed other debates regarding this issue and will incorporate their information in this discussion as it supports the debate overall. The reason for my creating this debate was for lack of existing opposition at all in the aforementioned debates. If an experienced debater on this site has advice, please post or message me for future knowledge. Thank you.

I will start with the obvious, homosexuality is a controversial and sensitive issue with not a few offended by the mere questioning of determining factors. I personally believe sexuality in general to be more psychologically based rather than biologically, as mapped genetic factors (aside from phenotypes) predict probability rather than certainty. This original thought has changed little through my education in the psychological and biological fields, learning that psychology, in general, has a larger role in a person's psychosocial and psychosexual development than biology.

Now, onto my initial argument:

Opening statement:

Homosexuality was originally considered a mental disorder, as the DSM-1, DSM-2, and DSM-3 state. In DSM-4 & DSM-5, homosexuality has been removed under grounds of being not necessarily harmful to a society or to the individual. However, I would counter this with the recent paradigm of homosexual pride demanding special treatment and attempting to recruit innocents and even children to their lifestyle, as referenced below (credit to Dragonfang):

"Lets face it we want to indoctrinate children.", "let"s face it"that"s a lie." "We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it," (8)
-Daniel Villarreal

By teaching children to accept queer sexuality, they are influencing children to choose to be homosexual. This thought process is largely due to thinking people are born homosexual and that such "acceptance" will not influence anyone anymore than their genetic code. I am arguing that sexuality has no genetic influence and, as such, educating children on homosexuality could be the reason for the increase of homosexuals today.

The LGBT movement has rarely been peaceful, even though they claim to be victims. This is seen through their aggressive attitudes towards those who question anything they say and their unwillingness to accept majority votes on bills (such as Prop 8).
Another tactic is using the media to focus on the few homosexual hate crimes. While there is no media coverage of homosexual hate crimes against heterosexuals (of which, there are many cases), media coverage tends to exaggerate hate crimes against homosexuals.

In fact, the FBI does not recognize hate crimes against heterosexuals, whites, or men as hate crimes: http://www.henrymakow.com...

The aggressive LGBTQ agenda is focusing on increasing membership, increasing state protection and privileges, and making any opposition subject to be titled bigotry or homophobia. This aggressiveness certainly has a negative effect on the society and is harmful.

Back to genetics, genetics have little to no influence over most mental factors (excepting severe mental disorders such as schizophrenia that have been conclusively proven to affect the brain).

I personally believe sexuality to function more like the Kinsey Scale, and that such preferences depend on your environment and upbringing.

Thank you to whoever accepts this topic and I ask only objectiveness through arguments with (hopefully) no petty, baseless insults.
AlternativeDavid

Con

Before I jump into my opening statement, I would like to ask for Pro to attest to the credibility and expertise of Daniel Villarreal. I could not conclusively pinpoint exactly who Pro was citing, as there are no people named Daniel Villrreal that are famous enough to dominate the google search results.

Recently, a study was published in the journal Psychological Medicine that provided the strongest evidence yet for homosexuality being genetic [1]. The study comprised of 409 pairs of openly gay brothers with there being nothing linking these men except for their sexuality. During this study the scientists found five unique single nucleotide polymorphisms in their genomes present in every man. They will continue doing studies in the future to decide whether or not this is in fact unique to gay men, but as of now it believed that straight men will not have these.

What we can determine from this study is that, while it's not conclusive data, there is reason to believe that homosexuality is genetic.

An argument used by many in Pro's position is that people actively choose to be gay; however, I personally do not remember when I chose to be straight. With the huge amount of discrimination towards gay men and women, what motive could they possibly have for choosing to be gay? It doesn't benefit them at all, in fact it harms them. Clearly they're not being nurtured into it, as there are gay kids that come out of extremely conservative families who have even been disowned[2].

In summary, homosexuality is more likely to be due to nature than nurture due to lack of motives to choose to be gay, anti-gay societal factors, and recent scientific publications linking homosexuality to genetics.

I apologize for having a short opening statement. I left out many arguments because they were covered by Pro and I would just be forcing him to repeat himself. I will cover them during the rebuttal period.

I look forward to a good debate.

[1] http://www.natureworldnews.com...
[2] http://www.independent.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
midnightnomad

Pro

Daniel Villarreal is an actor. Please follow the link for a list of his work: http://www.imdb.com...
This statement is more directly towards the aggressive stance the LGBTQ agenda has on spreading acceptance of the lifestyle, which I believe would be better suited for a debate on whether or not homosexuality should be encouraged or discouraged, as this sub-topic could detract from the focus of this debate.

I would ask Con to provide the link to this study for review, as many studies resulting in genetic determinants for homosexuality have been flawed. I would also counter with the studies of twins that have been conclusive and decisive in rejecting genetics in homosexuality as shown in http://www.mygenes.co.nz...

Sexual orientation is not, as Con put it, a conscious choice. Most mental processes are not, as expressed in operant and classical conditioning. In fact, conscious thinking itself comprises of only 10% of our cognitive function, whereas unconscious thinking dominates 90% of our thinking (http://www.mind-body.info...).

While homosexuality certainly continues to receive discrimination, this discrimination has been decreasing, as evidenced by the existence of gay clubs and gay marriages as well as other institutions. A motive is unnecessary, as that would require (as above) conscious reasoning for a conscious choice. A key element to sexual orientation, and homosexuality, being a cognitive process rather than a genetic one is the ability for sexuality to change over time. Were sexuality genetic, not a single homosexual person would revert to heterosexualism. However, there have been many reportings of such cases in which ex-gays confirm that the homosexual lifestyle is "like an addiction". The following is just one example:
https://www.lifesitenews.com.... There are others, but I believe this example to be the most thorough.

I would remind Con that the topic is not whether genetics are completely absent in sexual orientation, only that nature prevails over nature's influence. While there may indeed be no genetic factor (as has been conclusively denied in many studies whereas genetic relation has only been implied), If there is a genetic link in homosexuality, it would function much like an addiction in that it would only determine susceptibility to homosexual curiosity. Whether or not there is a genetic link, the susceptibility theory is evidenced by the Kinsey scale and its relevance to many people, as well as the existence of the heteroflexible and homoflexible spectrums.

A common argument for genetic disposition of gays is likening sexual orientation to race or ethnicity. This is not the case, as evidenced by the fact that many homosexuals have reverted just as heterosexuals may discover latent homosexual curiosity at many different points along their lifespans. Race or ethnicity cannot be chosen or cognitively developed, it is innate.

Studies have also shown that members of the LGBTQ community are, more than any other community, at higher risk for addictions in general (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). This could resemble a direct correlation and confirm that, as openly ex-gays pronounce, that homosexuality functions as a sexual addiction more than a biological trait.

I appreciate the concise and efficient response from Con, as it reduces the need for redundant statements on both sides and avoids cyclical arguing.
AlternativeDavid

Con

"...not necessarily harmful to a society or to the individual. However, I would counter this with the recent paradigm of homosexual pride demanding special treatment and attempting to recruit innocents and even children to their lifestyle"

What special treatment are they demanding exactly? The right to marry who they love? The right to not be discriminated against? Which rights do gays demand that Pro feels they don't deserve?

Also, recruit innocents and children? Homosexuality is not a cult. You cannot recruit somebody to a certain sexuality. Also, I'd like Pro to elaborate on what he means by "recruit". Are they handing out flyers, or are they using mind control tactics?

"'Lets face it we want to indoctrinate children', 'let"s face it'that"s a lie.' 'We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it,' (8)

Let's break this quote down, because after reading through it appears to send a completely different message than Pro believes...

Let's face it we want to indoctrinate children.

This sounds incredibly menacing and a horrible thing. Who would feel otherwise?

let's face it that's a lie.

Oh, he was being SARCASTIC in the first part. This guy doesn't actually believe that homosexuals are indoctrinating children, he was merely repeating a common talking point to strike it down.

We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.

What he is saying here is that for homosexuals to have a safe future free from oppression, schools must educate students to not discriminate against them.

What we see here is that Pro's quote actually shows a people that want to be free from oppression.


"By teaching children to accept queer sexuality, they are influencing children to choose to be homosexual."
"...increase of homosexuals today."

Does Pro have actual evidence of a substantial uptick in the percentage of homosexuals since they have become more accepted throughout the world? I'd like to see proof that an uptick was not due to people feeling more comfortable coming out as well.

Also, can pro use this logic to explain the existence of gays in Syria? They literally fear death over there [3]. Obviously nobody is teaching them to be gay.

"educating children on homosexuality"

Teaching kids about homosexuality makes people gay the same way that watching basketball makes you tall, or reading fantasy books makes you a wizard. People don't just turn into whatever they learn about.

"The LGBT movement has rarely been peaceful, even though they claim to be victims. This is seen through their aggressive attitudes towards those who question anything they say and their unwillingness to accept majority votes on bills"

I'd like evidence of the riots that Pro seems to think have been caused by the LGBT rights movement. The definition of protest makes no mention of violence [4]. Mohandas Gandhi would be ashamed of Pro right now. He believed in civil disobedience to unjust laws, and that's what all anti-gay laws are. Why should they submit to a majority vote that pertains to them when they are a very small minority [6]?

"In fact, the FBI does not recognize hate crimes against heterosexuals, whites, or men as hate crimes:"

Maybe that's because 96% of Americans are heterosexual[6], 63% of Americans are white [7] (an all time low), and men are clearly not the recipients of crimes due to misandry.

"While there is no media coverage of homosexual hate crimes against heterosexuals (of which, there are many cases)"

Would Pro care to name a few?

"The aggressive LGBTQ agenda is focusing on increasing membership, increasing state protection and privileges, and making any opposition subject to be titled bigotry or homophobia. This aggressiveness certainly has a negative effect on the society and is harmful."

I'd like some actual prof of this, and again I would especially like proof of an uptick in the number of gays in the world. Also, maybe opposition is labeled "bigotry and homophobia" because there's no legitimate reason to be an "opposition subject". If your belief system exists only to counter something else, you're probably not doing it for a righteous reason.

"Back to genetics, genetics have little to no influence over most mental factors (excepting severe mental disorders such as schizophrenia that have been conclusively proven to affect the brain)."

So Pro admits that genetic factors do impact the brain in some cases? Then how can he say with certainty that they don't? No conclusive data has been found.

---
Next round

"I would ask Con to provide the link to this study for review,"

I take it that Pro didn't bother to look that the link I provided to an article explaining the study. The article had a very obvious hyperlink that would have sent him to the study. Nevertheless here it is: [8]. In fact, the source also explained why this study is not flawed the way previous ones have been. "While many previous studies have looked into potential genetic drivers of homosexuality, these studies often boasted a significantly smaller sample size or lacked common controls. This is the first study of its kind to boast such a robust sample size and also be published in a scientific peer-reviewed paper."

"While homosexuality certainly continues to receive discrimination, this discrimination has been decreasing, as evidenced by the existence of gay clubs and gay marriages as well as other institutions."

Great, there is less discrimination and that's awesome. Now where is the proof that the number of gays is increasing?

"Were sexuality genetic, not a single homosexual person would revert to heterosexualism."

The example that Pro used for this doesn't exactly further his argument. The man clearly states that he was straight, and then was "restored". This means that he was straight but had homosexual tendencies. This raises the question, "is the Kinsey Scale exclusively non-genetic? Why can they not co-exist?

The man also says that homosexuality is an addiction, but people can be addicted to water as well [9]

"Most mental processes are not, as expressed in operant and classical conditioning."

This point is basically irrelevant unless Pro has direct evidence such as a study where a person was conditioned into fancying the same sex.

"I would remind Con that the topic is not whether genetics are completely absent in sexual orientation, only that nature prevails over nature's influence."

I think Pro may have made a typographical error here. The debate is Nurture v. Nature.

"Studies have also shown that members of the LGBTQ community are, more than any other community, at higher risk for addictions in general"

Could this be by any chance that due to discrimination they turn to outlets such as drugs or alcohol? That "ex-gay" man referenced earlier seemed to definitely feel a need to fill the void that his father didn't.

"Race or ethnicity cannot be chosen or cognitively developed, it is innate."

As Pro has not actually proven that homosexuality is cognitively developed, this argument is moot.

---

I believe that Pro has not yet made an effective case for their point of view as he has only used anecdotal evidence in favor of empirical evidence of conditioning of sexuality.

[3] http://www.cnn.com...
[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[5] http://www.crf-usa.org...
[6] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[7] http://www.nydailynews.com...
[8] http://journals.cambridge.org...
[9] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
midnightnomad

Pro

Unfortunately, it seems we've strayed from the topic at hand, but I will provide counters as necessary.

Special treatment such as forcing religious people to provide services for them against their will rather than simply find another bakery.
http://aclu-co.org...

There are others, but I believe that would be better covered in a debate specific to that argument.

As for indoctrinating children, it has been stated by not a few gays that they do want to recruit.
http://www.theonion.com...
http://www.greeleygazette.com...

This can be seen as well as schools teaching kids as early as 5, before they even reach puberty, about homosexuality.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...

I believe I made it clear in my opening statement that I asked for objectiveness, as Con is avoiding the topic at hand as well as showing more emotional frustration than actual arguments even regarding the topics Con is now attacking. If Con would like to continue discussing the increased prevalence of homosexuality, Con could start a debate relating to that topic and invite myself or another.

"By teaching children to accept queer sexuality, they are influencing children to choose to be homosexual."
"...increase of homosexuals today."

Increase of homosexuality
http://patriotupdate.com...
http://www.conservapedia.com...
http://igfculturewatch.com...

"Teaching kids about homosexuality makes people gay the same way that watching basketball makes you tall, or reading fantasy books makes you a wizard. People don't just turn into whatever they learn about.

This comment is baseless and nonsensical. Height is genetic and being a wizard is reserved for fantasy novels.
Again, to refute this point, please see above where people have changed from being homosexual to heterosexual. If homosexuality was truly genetic, this would not be a possibility.

"I'd like evidence of the riots that Pro seems to think have been caused by the LGBT rights movement. The definition of protest makes no mention of violence [4]. Mohandas Gandhi would be ashamed of Pro right now. He believed in civil disobedience to unjust laws, and that's what all anti-gay laws are. Why should they submit to a majority vote that pertains to them when they are a very small minority [6]? "

Another subjective disagreement rather than a valid argument. Saying Gandhi "would be ashamed" is in no way an argument (considering he refused Western medical aid for his wife and let her die, but allowed Western medical aid himself, he's not exactly the greatest guy). http://www.thecrimson.com...
The rest can be seen through the White Night riots in San Francisco and other instances.

"Maybe that's because 96% of Americans are heterosexual[6], 63% of Americans are white [7] (an all time low), and men are clearly not the recipients of crimes due to misandry."

So, being a majority means you can be justifiably hated for the color of your skin and sexuality?

"While there is no media coverage of homosexual hate crimes against heterosexuals (of which, there are many cases)"

White Night riots

"While there is no media coverage of homosexual hate crimes against heterosexuals (of which, there are many cases)"

Unfortunately, I cannot. As stated, they have not been covered or released and I do not have access to police files. All I can reference is personal experience and that of friends who have been subject to being attacked for not being gay.

Increasing membership covered above. State protection covered by the "Gay Panic Defense" being an actual law.
The Chick-Fil-A propaganda and the attacks on Christian businesses as bigotry and homophobia. In these ways, homosexuality has curbed government to protect them but not protect anyone from them when refused service for religious purposes.

"So Pro admits that genetic factors do impact the brain in some cases? Then how can he say with certainty that they don't? No conclusive data has been found."

In the case of schizophrenia, autism, Alzheimer's, and other proven neurodegenerative disorders, the cause if biological and the afflicted has little influence in changing. This is not the case with homosexuality, as has been proven by numerous Twins Studies (listed above) as well as homosexuals changing to heterosexuality (listed above). Someone with Alzheimer's cannot decide not to have Alzheimer's.

Con is wrongly presumptuous that I have not read his arguments, including his links. I find it odd that the end of Con's own article states, "Still, the researchers stress that regardless of genetic preference, genes are but a factor in the greater picture, taking into account that social and cultural pressures can still effect an individual's sexual lifestyle, no matter how they were born." http://www.natureworldnews.com...

"I think Pro may have made a typographical error here. The debate is Nurture v. Nature."
The debate is "Is Homosexuality more nurture than nature?" as seen at the top of the page.

Con has used most of the last round to address political and societal issues rather than the issue at hand, the superior significance of nurture over nature in homosexuality. Con's link to http://www.natureworldnews.com... expressly states that, while it is the most conclusive study of relating genetics to homosexuality, end with admitting that social and cultural pressures influence an individual. The power of cognitive development over any genetic factors in homosexuality exist, again, in the ability to choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.

I urge Con to stay focused on the topic to be discussed and, if Con would like or permit, start a separate debate to discuss the sociopolitical effects of homosexuality.
AlternativeDavid

Con

I'd like to begin my rebuttals at the end of Pro's round 3 argument. I'd like to be clear on the issue that sociopolitical effects of homosexuality only became involved as result of Pro's earlier arguments. As so, I will abstain if he does.

I'd like to make a few points very quickly regarding this above topic because I don't want to lose as a result of unanswered arguments. I will limit new arguments as best I can.

"As for indoctrinating children, it has been stated by not a few gays that they do want to recruit."

Pro left two citations. One thirty second read through the comments section of "greeley gazette"will explain why Pro's reference is invalid (I already covered the explanation anyway), but the other... My god Pro just lost all of his credibility. I move that Pro lose arguments, conduct, and sources due to this. We have no way of knowing the credibility of Pro's earlier arguments now that he has cited a satirical newspaper to prove a non-satirical point. My friend, The Onion is not news. Here are some recent Onion articles: [10] [11] [12]

"This can be seen as well as schools teaching kids as early as 5, before they even reach puberty, about homosexuality."

Awesome! That's great. Maybe they'll turn into Nazis too. Don't they learn about that? Oh, for sure they'll become Communist dictators in Central America while they're at it? Isn't that how things work? You learn about something and you want to become it? I call malarkey on Pro's contentions.

"I believe I made it clear in my opening statement that I asked for objectiveness, as Con is avoiding the topic at hand as well as showing more emotional frustration than actual arguments even regarding the topics Con is now attacking. If Con would like to continue discussing the increased prevalence of homosexuality, Con could start a debate relating to that topic and invite myself or another."

Maybe a bit of deductive reasoning will help Pro understand my point

[This is not counting an increase due to more people feeling like its safe to come out of the closet]

P1: If straights are being recruited to become gay, there will be more gays.
P2: The percentage of gays has not had a significant increase
C1: Straights are not being recruited to become gay

"Increase of homosexuality"

First Source: The poll being talked about was not a random sample, it was voluntary response. I feel as though homosexuals would be more likely to give a response than heterosexuals on a poll such as this. Anybody with a basic statistical background would see this flaw. Also, the website that is talking about the poll is obviously very biased. The use of the phrase "gay 'marriage'" that can be found at the end shows an obvious anti-gay bias. I'd like to see an objective article.
Second source: This is just a mash of data. I'm not going to sift through it to find what Pro was referring to.
Third source: I just love this paragraph from the source "So how many gay couples are there really? ...No one knows. As social tolerance and acceptance increase, the number of gay couples reporting themselves-and perhaps the number of gays forming couples and living together-is bound to increase with each census and ACS report. You want a complete guess? I'd guess there are 2.5 million to 3 million gay couples. Check back in a few years and we'll see if I'm right."

"Another subjective disagreement"

I for one am from the school of thought that everything is subjective. I could point out the subjectivity of everything Pro has argued so far.

"So, being a majority means you can be justifiably hated for the color of your skin and sexuality?"

I assume that Pro meant "can't". Anyway, that's nothing but a straw man. I was stating that majorities aren't discriminated against because they are the majorities. They decide who gets discriminated against.

"White Night riots"

One example from 40 years ago?

"Unfortunately, I cannot. As stated, they have not been covered or released and I do not have access to police files. All I can reference is personal experience and that of friends who have been subject to being attacked for not being gay."

In that case I'd like to say this: I win this debate. There are millions of studies done that disprove every single thing that Pro has stated. I just don't have them.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens

"The Chick-Fil-A propaganda and the attacks on Christian businesses as bigotry and homophobia. In these ways, homosexuality has curbed government to protect them but not protect anyone from them when refused service for religious purposes."

Why is discrimination okay when it's on behalf of a religion? Refusing service to somebody based off of who they love is discrimination. The government's duty is to protect people from discrimination. Shall we go back to allowing restaurants to decide if "colored" people get to sit in their restaurant. The church of David hates blacks, so no more blacks can sit at my restaurant. Is that really okay?

"homosexuals changing to heterosexuality"

Is Pro still pushing anecdotal evidence? Anyways, isn't it possible that they were mistaken about their sexuality?

"Someone with Alzheimer's cannot decide not to have Alzheimer's."

Is Pro stating that gays choose to be gay? This seems pretty contrary to other arguments he made. I thought we established that there is literally no reason to want to be gay. Discrimination is still rampant, and Pro showed some links that show Homosexuals have a higher rate of STDs and STIs. Why would anybody choose that life?

"Con is wrongly presumptuous that I have not read his arguments, including his links."

So why did Pro act like information that had been presented was absent?

"Still, the researchers stress that regardless of genetic preference, genes are but a factor in the greater picture, taking into account that social and cultural pressures can still effect an individual's sexual lifestyle, no matter how they were born."

Right? The studies found that some people have a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality. This also strictly says "sexual lifestyle". A non gay man may choose to have intercourse with men for one reason or another. Sexual lifestyle does not equal chemical and biological processes in the brain that cause someone to love another person.

"The debate is "Is Homosexuality more nurture than nature?" as seen at the top of the page."

Right, and Pro stated "nature prevails over nature". I was clarifying.

"Con has used most of the last round to address political and societal issues rather than the issue at hand"

Am I not supposed to counter arguments? Pro is equally as guilty of this as I am.

---

Pro has not proven a conclusive link between nurture and homosexuality. Here is a list of things that Pro has established:
-Nurture can have an effect on people if they are genetically predisposed to homosexuality (this is nature)
-Credibility means nothing
-It's okay to discriminate against homosexuals, and trying to end the discrimination is recruitment
-Only I have to stay on task

Here is what I have established:
-Nurture can have an effect on people if they are genetically predisposed to homosexuality (this is nature)
-There is no proof of recruitment other than a misinterpreted quote from some actor
-An increase in homosexuals cannot be attributed to "recruitment", but rather to a more accepting society
-There is no empirical evidence of people switching sexuality


[10] http://www.theonion.com...
[11] http://www.theonion.com...
[12] http://www.theonion.com...
Debate Round No. 3
midnightnomad

Pro

midnightnomad forfeited this round.
AlternativeDavid

Con

I extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
midnightnomad

Pro

First, I will address the unrelated arguments.

I acquiesce to Con regarding homosexual recruitment.

Con: Awesome! That's great. Maybe they'll turn into Nazis too. Don't they learn about that? Oh, for sure they'll become Communist dictators in Central America while they're at it? Isn't that how things work? You learn about something and you want to become it? I call malarkey on Pro's contentions.
Pro: The condescending tone is not appreciated, and neither is the apparent lack of knowledge regarding education or child psychology. It is not just the education of the subject, but how the information is introduced and regarded. Nazis are widely regarded negatively in all forms of education in the United States. I believe delving into Communism or further points of this regard will only exacerbate how far we've come from the original topic, the prevalence of nurture over nature in homosexuality.

Con: ["I believe I made it clear in my opening statement that I asked for objectiveness, as Con is avoiding the topic at hand as well as showing more emotional frustration than actual arguments even regarding the topics Con is now attacking. If Con would like to continue discussing the increased prevalence of homosexuality, Con could start a debate relating to that topic and invite myself or another."

Maybe a bit of deductive reasoning will help Pro understand my point]
Pro: I retain the original statement that Con has strayed from objectivity (as per later quote) and has now begun responding emotionally.

Con: First Source: The poll being talked about was not a random sample, it was voluntary response. I feel as though homosexuals would be more likely to give a response than heterosexuals on a poll such as this. Anybody with a basic statistical background would see this flaw. Also, the website that is talking about the poll is obviously very biased. The use of the phrase "gay 'marriage'" that can be found at the end shows an obvious anti-gay bias. I'd like to see an objective article.
Second source: This is just a mash of data. I'm not going to sift through it to find what Pro was referring to.
Third source: I just love this paragraph from the source "So how many gay couples are there really? ...No one knows. As social tolerance and acceptance increase, the number of gay couples reporting themselves-and perhaps the number of gays forming couples and living together-is bound to increase with each census and ACS report. You want a complete guess? I'd guess there are 2.5 million to 3 million gay couples. Check back in a few years and we'll see if I'm right."
Pro: Con seems unwilling to check data and statistics.

Con: "I for one am from the school of thought that everything is subjective. I could point out the subjectivity of everything Pro has argued so far."
Pro: While many things are subjective, there are objective truths. If Con would like to take the time to point out my own subjectivity, that is up to them. However, the conclusive scientific studies proving the genetic absence in homosexuality (and sexuality in general) is an objective, undeniable truth until equally and conclusively proven otherwise.

Con: "I assume that Pro meant "can't". Anyway, that's nothing but a straw man. I was stating that majorities aren't discriminated against because they are the majorities. They decide who gets discriminated against."
Pro: Once again, Pro assumes wrongly. Majorities do not "decide who gets discriminated against". Further discussion on topic will lead away from current topic.

Con: "In that case I'd like to say this: I win this debate. There are millions of studies done that disprove every single thing that Pro has stated. I just don't have them."
Pro: Wrong. There have been 0 conclusive studies to show a direct genetic relevance to homosexuality, only one correlational study that Con mentioned earlier that itself states that environment prevails. See earlier argument.

Con: "Why is discrimination okay when it's on behalf of a religion? Refusing service to somebody based off of who they love is discrimination. The government's duty is to protect people from discrimination. Shall we go back to allowing restaurants to decide if "colored" people get to sit in their restaurant. The church of David hates blacks, so no more blacks can sit at my restaurant. Is that really okay?"
Pro: Con seems to have completely misunderstood the argument. Discrimination is never "okay" and, unfortunately, there have been many instances of gays attacking businesses (Chick-Fil-A, Colorado's Bakery, etc.) Con is appealing now to racism, perpetuating their lack of focus on the topic as well as instituting an emotional response from readers. This debate has nothing to do with racism.

Con: "Is Pro still pushing anecdotal evidence? Anyways, isn't it possible that they were mistaken about their sexuality?"
Pro: Enough anecdotal evidence is still evidence, when it is great enough to constitute that sexuality can change over time. After all, a person cannot simply "mistake" their genetics.

Con: "Is Pro stating that gays choose to be gay? This seems pretty contrary to other arguments he made. I thought we established that there is literally no reason to want to be gay. Discrimination is still rampant, and Pro showed some links that show Homosexuals have a higher rate of STDs and STIs. Why would anybody choose that life?"
Pro: Con seems to have forgotten previous arguments. I suggest Con re-read earlier arguments regarding homosexuality as a cognitive process. Alzheimer's is not a cognitive process, it is a neurodegenerative disease.

As Con has stated that they will abstain when I do and that I am just as guilty of enabling distracting arguments as they are, which I am, I will only respond to arguments pertaining directly to the topic at hand, "Is homosexuality more nurture than nature?" I appreciate the clarification.

Con is misrepresenting my points.
-Nurture has an effect on everyone, hence the very presence of its argument in many nature vs. nurture arguments, classical conditioning, operational conditioning, and cognitive development throughout the lifetime.
-Credibility means everything, hence why I initially led with scientific journals and articles, such as the genetic journal referencing the Twins Studies that have each conclusively proven genetic absence in sexual development (see Round 2)
-Con is not only twisting my words, but doing so in every regard on each argument. I have, at no point, said "it's okay to discriminate against homosexuals" or "trying to end discrimination is recruitment."
-As Con has stated themselves, I have responded to arguments as to leave nothing unaddressed. However, seeing as how Con can only bring up more irrelevant issues in a vain attempt to skew away from the topic at hand and to draw audience sympathy, I shall simply stop responding to irrelevant arguments. We both must stay on task, hence my continued and repeated instances of asking to return to topic. This is the final reminder.

Pro has established nothing other than one study concluding itself that environment is more important to sexuality (and lifestyle) than any genetic correlation. The study had only concluded one small genetic similarity amongst a small sample, showing a correlation at best and no proof whereas the Twins Studies, as referenced earlier, have conclusively proven genetic absence. The people who have switched sexuality are their own empirical evidence that it can be and is being done. The rest of Pros arguments have addressed nothing but sociopolitical points and Pro had not cited or sourced one empirical evidence or proof, as none exists, that homosexuality is A) genetic at all and B) influenced more by nature, genetics, than by nurture, cognitive development and environment.
AlternativeDavid

Con

I would like to begin this round by apologizing for being condescending and perhaps patronizing as well. Sometimes I get caught up in trying to show that I have the logical high ground, and forget that I sound like a jerk. It was uncalled for, and again I apologize.

"Nazis are widely regarded negatively in all forms of education in the United States"

The examples I used were completely irrelevant to my actual point and were merely nexuses for my point and the real word., I'm actually surprised that Pro thought I was specifically speaking about these examples. I could just have easily used British soldiers. A child learning about ww2 would see that British soldiers were incredibly valiant and are taught in western countries in a positive way. This does not mean that American fourth graders will wish to grow up and become British soldiers. As I previously stated, people don't want to become everything they learn about.

"I believe delving into Communism or further points of this regard will only exacerbate how far we've come from the original topic, the prevalence of nurture over nature in homosexuality."

I don't understand why Pro is backing off from this argument, for this point was brought up to prove that learning about homosexuality is nurture. Being able to prove that this is nurture would have certainly benefited him.

"I retain the original statement that Con has strayed from objectivity (as per later quote) and has now begun responding emotionally."

I don't understand how Pro interpreted my deductive reasoning as emotional. This is what he is referring to:

P1: If straights are being recruited to become gay, there will be more gays.
P2: The percentage of gays has not had a significant increase
C1: Straights are not being recruited to become gay

"Con seems unwilling to check data and statistics."

There's a fabulous book called "How to Lie with Statistics" I recently read. Early on it talks about how statistics are often misconstrued and twisted to prove points. I was addressing the fact that I believe the first source to be doing this. The second source as I stated was a mash of numbers and data that I wasn't going to sift through. Pro didn't tell me what to look for. The third source had information in it that contradicted the reasons that Pro introduced it in the first place. I'm not unwilling to check data and statistics, I'm ensuring that they are being used objectively and correctly.

"However, the conclusive scientific studies proving the genetic absence in homosexuality (and sexuality in general) is an objective, undeniable truth...."

I would very much like to see these "conclusive" studies proving the genetic absence in homosexuality. I'm seriously curious about why Pro never introduced them. The closest that Pro got to introducing a "conclusive study" was introducing a link with over a dozen chapters. I don't have the time to read through an entire study to understand what the study is proving. I'd also like to know why studies are still being done if it's "conclusive" as Pro stated.

"Once again, [Con] assumes wrongly. Majorities do not 'decide who gets discriminated against'"

Who, if not the majority decides that? I understand that we agreed to not use sociopolitical arguments anymore, but one cannot just say "you're wrong", and then run away.

"Wrong. There have been 0 conclusive studies to show a direct genetic relevance to homosexuality, only one correlational study that Con mentioned earlier that itself states that environment prevails."

This is nothing but a truism. If there were completely conclusive studies on either side, then this wouldn't even be being debated right now. Also, yes it showed a correlation, but Pro never proved why this correlation is illegitimate. No, the study did not say that environment prevails, the study states that the environment plays a bigger role. I interpreted this to mean that homosexuality is genetic, but it won't necessarily show itself. The people it comes out in have a nurturing environment for that trait, but nurture cannot take effect until nature has taken effect. This means that nature trumps nurture.

"Con seems to have completely misunderstood the argument... This debate has nothing to do with racism."

I would very much like for Pro to give a citation for these events. Also, this was not an attempt to draw an emotional response. It was just pointing out a double standard that Pro had. Pro also dodged my question by stating that "discrimination is never 'okay'". If it's not okay, then why is it a problem when a Christian business isn't able to deny service to a homosexual? This ties into my point earlier about the fact the clearly people are not being nurtured that much when there is still such an anti-gay culture.

"Enough anecdotal evidence is still evidence"

But where are the studies? I want something that cannot be made up. I hate to accuse people of lying for attention, but it happens. There was a very recent case where somebody lied about being raped at the University of Virginia [13] by members of a fraternity.

"Con seems to have forgotten previous arguments."

This was in response to Pro's claim that "someone with Alzheimer's cannot decide not to have Alzheimer's." Pro's wording made it seem as though he was contrasting Alzheimer's and homosexuality.

"Nurture has an effect on everyone"

I believe I thoroughly covered this concept earlier, but I will reiterate. Nurture does indeed impact people, but it only makes them "become" homosexuals if they are genetically predisposed to homosexuality. My evidence in favor of this assertion was not discredited. Pro did not have any evidence on the contrary that he mentioned in the debate. He merely had a citation that went unused.

"Credibility means everything"

This is coming from the one who used The Onion. Even though he conceded the point, this clearly shows an inability to determine what is credible and what is not. As I stated before, there is no way to determine the credibility of anything that Pro has stated in this debate.

"-Con is not only twisting my words, but doing so in every regard on each argument. I have, at no point, said 'it's okay to discriminate against homosexuals' or 'trying to end discrimination is recruitment.'"

Pro does not have to use those phrases verbatim. "the first quote was already covered, and the second quote was just rewording his arguments. Chik-Fil-A isn't allowed to discriminate, and Pro seems to think that standing up for themselves and being in the spotlight is equivalent to "recruitment".

"-As Con has stated themselves, I have responded to arguments as to leave nothing unaddressed... This is the final reminder."

Was Pro not the first one to bring up sociopolitical arguments in the first round? Am I misinterpreting this quote?: "The LGBT movement has rarely been peaceful, even though they claim to be victims. This is seen through their aggressive attitudes towards those who question anything they say and their unwillingness to accept majority votes on bills"

---

I believe that despite being sidetracked by unrelated arguments, I have made a better case for nature than Pro has made for nurture. Due to my argument that nature precedes nurture facing little opposition from empirical, or even just non-anecdotal evidence, it's safe to say that I won the battle for that argument. This argument alone should be enough to swing even the debate in my favor. This was not alone though. Pro also conceded one of his most important arguments: the existence of homosexual recruitment. Another important point that Pro failed to prove is the existence of a nurturing culture. There cannot be nurture without a nurturing culture. This ties into Pro's claims about classical conditioning. They are irrelevant due to the fact that Pro never proved that classical conditioning for homosexuality even exists.


[13] http://abcnews.go.com...
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by midnightnomad 1 year ago
midnightnomad
salam.morcos misread the information saying that we only use 10% of our brains. Con had stated that homosexuality is not a conscious choice, which it isn't, and I was providing information that unconscious thoughts exist as well, and are also prevalent to our thinking overall. The misconception that choice is always conscious is what I believe leads people to misunderstand mental processes. I hope this helps.
Posted by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
Pro's argument that we only use 10% of our brain is a red herring.

Pro's argument that homosexuals can change the orientation is a good claim (provided an example of a 50 year old). Con's argument that the person was simply mistaken actually only help Pro's case. Con could have argued that the person in example could have been bi-sexual. This point goes to Pro.

Pro's argument that there's a more likelihood that "members of the LGBTQ community are, more than any other community, at higher risk for addictions in general" Pro's conclusion that this suggests that they "become" addicted to homosexual behavior is non sequitor.

Con challenges Pro if there's an increase in homosexuality. Pro tried to show that there was an increase. Con showed that the increase could be attributed because a lot of homosexuals are afraid to come out openly due to discrimination. No points to either.

The final two rounds was a waste. I award 3 points to Con.
Posted by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
I don't recall ever giving 6 points or more for a decision, but there's always a first time! Especially that I have absolutely no bias to either conclusion!
Spelling/Grammar: Tied. Both debaters can be easily understood.
Conduct: Pro included *many* red herrings. He spoke about LGBT discrimination, media focus on gay hate crimes, children indoctrination, LGBT group not being peaceful, LGBT recruiting children, heterosexual crimes are not hate crime, Night riots... and I just mentioned a few! ALL of those have nothing to do with the topic and are red herring. Pro *accused* Con for deviating from the subject matter! I award 1 point to Con.
Sources: All Pro's sources were *extremely* biased, and *rarely* scientific. This is like going to the The Flat Earth Society" website to prove that the Earth is flat! Con cited many sources that weren't LGBT sources. 2 points to Con.
Arguments: I will *only* focus on the arguments that are *somewhat* related to the subject matter.

Pro argues that "by teaching children to accept queer sexuality, they are influencing children to choose to be homosexual". Con rebuts this argument by showing how gays have little incentive to choose to be gay (and every reason to choose not to be gay as the example in Syria). This point goes to Con.

Con provides a study "that provided the strongest evidence yet for homosexuality being genetic". Con admits that this argument is inconclusive, and also doesn't state how much genetics actually factor into defining someone's sexuality. A weak point.

Pro claims to provide a study that shows that homosexuality is nurture. But he referred to a book. He should have brought "unbiased" studies that the book might have referenced! No point to Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
midnightnomadAlternativeDavidTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.