The Instigator
MilitantAtheist
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
ReformedArsenal
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

There are no compelling secular arguments against homosexuality

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 5 votes the winner is...
ReformedArsenal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,596 times Debate No: 16898
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (5)

 

MilitantAtheist

Pro

The resolution is clear. My opponent is going to bring forth SECULAR arguments against homosexuality and I will refute them.

STRUCTURE
Round 1 pro will give terms and con will present his first argument
Round 2 First rebuttals
Round 3 Second rebuttals
Round 4 Third rebuttals
Round 5 Summary and closing arguments. No new arguments allowed.

Rules
Must bring forth SECULAR arguments
May NOT declare victory or ask for votes until last round

THIS DEBATE IS NOT OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE! (Emphasis)

Good luck and I now turn it over to con for his first arguments.
ReformedArsenal

Con

I look forward to debating this topic with you.

I would like to add the following stipulations:
If either Pro or Con does not post an argument, the debate is an automatic loss and will result in a 7 point vote against the debater who did not post.
There will be no argumnts carried into the comments. Arguments that are made in the comments should be dismissed unless also posted in the argument itself.

All yours MA.
Debate Round No. 1
MilitantAtheist

Pro

Hello, ReformedArsenal. Thank you so much for accepting this debate. I agree to your additional stipulations.

May I remind you the structure of the debate.
STRUCTURE
Round 1 pro will give terms and con will present his first argument
Round 2 First rebuttals
Round 3 Second rebuttals
Round 4 Third rebuttals
Round 5 Summary and closing arguments. No new arguments allowed.


You have not posted a single argument thus breaking the structure of the debate. Where is your argument?
ReformedArsenal

Con

My apologies, I must have misread the terms. I shall keep my opening argument brief.

My opponent seeks to argue that "there are no compelling secular arguments against homosexuality." To understand the framing of this debate, we must first understand the meaning of the word "secular."

"Secular" is an antonym for the word "Sacred." Specifically, "Sacred" is defined as "of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal" [A] For the sake of this debate, we shall take this word to mean "Outside of a religious framework." As such, I shall argue my point primarily from a scientific point of view.

Primary Contention:
Homosexual Union does not serve the primary biological purpose in mating behavior, and therefore does not serve the greater biological purpose of human evolution.

Contention 1.A) The primary secular explanation of behavior is found in Evolutionary Theory. Essentially, what I am saying is that the vast majority of explanatory power in terms of describing behavior (either in humans or so-called "lower animals") is framed in terms of evolutionary biology. While it is true that other factors (most often culture) may influence behavior, they themselves are usually explained in terms of evolutionary forces.

Contention 1.B) In Evolutionary Biology the primary driving force in Natural Selection is a theory called "Reproductive Fitness." In short form, Reproductive Fitness is a way to describe how likely it is that a given organism's genetic information will make it into the next generation. This is most commonly spoken of in terms of whole species, but can also refer to individual organisms. An example of this would be the following statement: "A large healthy bull has a higher level of fitness than a small sickly bull." The idea is that the large healthy bull is more likely to successfully find a mate, fight off competitors, and successfully sire offspring. In evolutionary theory, a mutation only remains if the resulting organism has a higher or, in some cases, a neutral fitness. [B]

Contention 1.C) Homosexuality, irrespective of the cause, causes no increase in human reproductive fitness. Since homosexuals mating cannot create offspring that passes their genetics into the next generation, this particularly behavior serves no purpose in regards to the primary secular explanation of behavior. While this argument holds force if homosexuality is a choice, or a culturally conditioned behavior, it holds even more force if it is a genetic mutation. Quite frankly put... if Homosexuality were left unaided by non-natural reproductive technologies, Natural Selection would eliminate those organisms who did not mate with a member of the opposite gender.

Conclusion) I have shown that by the standards of one form (arguably the predominant form) of secular behavioral explanation that homosexuality not only does not serve a purpose, it actually works against the purpose. To summarize: Naturalistic Darwinian Evolution explains all behavior in terms of reproductive fitness. Homosexual behavior causes a reduction in reproductive fitness (Reduction is present in the entire species, and reduced to zero in individual organisms) and therefore is "bad" in terms of evolutionary theory. As such, when making decisions exclusively from an evolutionary science point of view, we are compelled to view homosexuality as a negative and counterproductive genetic mutation that causes a reduction in reproductive fitness in the human species.

Thank you for reading, I look forward to coming rounds.

[A] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[B] For a general overview of this discussion point please see http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
MilitantAtheist

Pro

Hello there, I thank ReformedArsenal for his opening statments.

In a nutshell, my opponent argues the following:

Evolution defines "Good" as "Contributing to Reproductive Fitness" and "Bad" as "Detracting from Reproductive Fitness." Homsexuality detracts from Reproductive Fitness, so therefore homosexuality is "bad" in the eyes of Evolutionary Science.

Since there is a compelling argument against homosexuality (from an Evolutionary Science perspective which is markedly secular), the resolution is false and Con takes the debate.

At first, one may think this to be a compelling argument. However, when we look deeper, we see numerous flaws.

1) Homosexual behaviour is displayed in animals.

Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 1999; ISBN 0312192398

http://en.wikipedia.org...

In February of 2004, the NY Times reported a male pair of chinstrap penguins in the Central Park Zoo in New York City had successfully hatched and fostered a female chick from a fertile egg they had been given to incubate.

http://www.nytimes.com...;

We see that Evolution has not only allowed homosexuality in humans, but in other species as well.

Evolution never defines what is good and what is evil. It just shows us how we got here.

2) Is sex for procreation?

My opponent also argues that it is good if it benefits the human species. However, we see sterile couples getting married and having sex...so does that mean that it is wrong for them to do so?

I understand that this debate is not about marriage, but sterile couples do have sex...should that be wrong?

Furthermore, I wish to point out that meiosis (formation of sex-sells [eggs and sperm]) happens throught the life of a male, but not the life of a female. So theoretically, it is probable that a 90 year old man could have a child if it is with a woman who is younger. Therefore, I wish to ask my opponent if senior citizens should not be together and the males go with younger women.

Back to you, ReformedArsenal. I eagerly await your reply.
ReformedArsenal

Con

My opponent has responded to my argument with 2 rebuttals.

The first is a statement:"Homosexual behaviour is displayed in animals."

The second is a rhetorical question "Is sex for procreation?"

RR1) My opponent provides a report that shows that homosexuality happens in nature in various ways. However, what my opponent does ot answer is if this is a benefit or a dentriment to the reproductive fitness of the animal. In the case of the gay penguins, we see this happening in non-naturalsettings. My opponent also supplies a wikipedia article that gives several examples of gay animals in nature. However, in the majority of natural circumstances the so-called gay animals seek out females to mate with to produce offspring. Their reproductive urges override any other urges the animals may exhibit.

The unequivicol fact is that an animal who does not mate with a member of the opposite gender cannot pass their genes into the next generation. Their exclusively homosexual behavior therefore is a dentriment to their repoductive fitness and from an evolutionary perspective is a"bad" (not that I did not say evil, as my opponent substitutes for me) decision. I would ask my opponent to show me any sexually reproducing animal in nature that is able to pass its genetic likness into the next generation without a member of the opposite gender to reproduce with. While the gay penguins may have fostered an egg provided to them, they did not pass their genetic information into the next generation. These gay penguins have reduced their own reproductive fitness to zero.

RR2) My opponent seeks to misdirect this question to make this about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. He seeks to point out that reproduction is not the only purpose of sex. This is true! However, he resolution of the debate is not "there is no compelling exhaustive argument against homosexuality." Therefore, as Con all I must do is show that there is a perspective in which there is a compelling argument against homosexuality. I have done this. From the perspective of evolutionary science, which values the passing of ones genetic likeness into the next generation, homosexuality is counter-productive. From this perspective, a non-sterile partner should leave their sterile partner and reproudce with someone who is able (if both parties are sterile then their sexual choice makes no detraction from reproductive fitness in either the species or in these individuals). the same goes for elderly men leaving elderly women and mating with younger fertile women. There is nothing wrong with having sex without reproduction, however refusing to have sex without reproduction (as homosexuals are apt to do) is non-virtuous (virtue in its original meaning of "effective" or "efficient") and therefore is "bad" in an exclusively evolutionary minded view.

Note, this is not my personal perspective. However, my personal perspective and the validity of it is not what we are debating. We are debating if a compelling secular argument exists against homosexuality. I have presented a perspective (evolutionary science) that holds an entierly secular perspective that considers homosexuality (in so much as homosexual mating is non-reproductive) as a negative effect.
Debate Round No. 3
MilitantAtheist

Pro

I thank my opponent for his fast response.

My opponent provides a report that shows that homosexuality happens in nature in various ways. However, what my opponent does ot answer is if this is a benefit or a dentriment to the reproductive fitness of the animal. How is it a benefit? Obviously we know that they cannot reproduce.
In the case of the gay penguins, we see this happening in non-naturalsettings. Such as in a zoo? My opponent in that case would be correct as it is not occuring in the natural habitat of Anarctica. My opponent also supplies a wikipedia article that gives several examples of gay animals in nature. Along with a NY Time article about occurences. However, in the majority of natural circumstances the so-called gay animals seek out females to mate with to produce offspring. This is correct, but still it doesn't explain how they are in a homosexual relationship. In humans, one can be a bisexual meaning that they are attracted to both genders. I feel that this could well be the case in these instances. Their reproductive urges override any other urges the animals may exhibit. My opponent gives no sources.

The unequivicol fact is that an animal who does not mate with a member of the opposite gender cannot pass their genes into the next generation. Obviously. Their exclusively homosexual behavior therefore is a dentriment to their repoductive fitness and from an evolutionary perspective is a"bad" (not that I did not say evil, as my opponent substitutes for me) decision. But what determines bad or good. If it makes that person happy, why not? It is more detremental to force someone to be in a relationship they do not want to be in than to allow for their homosexual behaviours. I would ask my opponent to show me any sexually reproducing animal in nature that is able to pass its genetic likness into the next generation without a member of the opposite gender to reproduce with. Illogical because it is impossible. I am in honours biology and the only way that could be remotely possible is if a woman would have the sperm inplanted in her. That would require preservation of the male sperm. While the gay penguins may have fostered an egg provided to them, they did not pass their genetic information into the next generation. These gay penguins have reduced their own reproductive fitness to zero. True. But in any case, it shows that homosexuals in animals can be fit for parenting.

My opponent seeks to misdirect this question to make this about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. He seeks to point out that reproduction is not the only purpose of sex. This is true! Wow! My opponent admits that reproduction is not the purpose of sex. Thank you! However, he resolution of the debate is not "there is no compelling exhaustive argument against homosexuality." Uh, yes. The resolution of the debate (as defined in round 1) is for you to show me good secular arguments against homosexuality. Therefore, as Con all I must do is show that there is a perspective in which there is a compelling argument against homosexuality. Correct. I have done this. But it has been rebutted. From the perspective of evolutionary science, which values the passing of ones genetic likeness into the next generation, homosexuality is counter-productive. That may be true, however, as I have shown examples of homosexuality in animals, there is no reason why it goes against evolution. From this perspective, a non-sterile partner should leave their sterile partner and reproudce with someone who is able True. Hoewver, that would require divorice. (if both parties are sterile then their sexual choice makes no detraction from reproductive fitness in either the species or in these individuals). Okay, hypothetical question, if two males are sterile, then would it still be bad to display homosexual behaviour? the same goes for elderly men leaving elderly women and mating with younger fertile women. There is nothing wrong with having sex without reproduction, Exactly what I've been trying to argue this entire time. however refusing to have sex without reproduction (as homosexuals are apt to do) is non-virtuous (virtue in its original meaning of "effective" or "efficient") Which means that it is wrong and you contradicted yourself. and therefore is "bad" in an exclusively evolutionary minded view. Again, it is worse to force someone to love someone they cannot love just to reproduce.

Note, this is not my personal perspective. And if your prespective is wrong? However, my personal perspective and the validity of it is not what we are debating. You are correct. We are debating if a compelling secular argument exists against homosexuality. Again, that is correct. I have presented a perspective (evolutionary science) that holds an entierly secular perspective that considers homosexuality (in so much as homosexual mating is non-reproductive) as a negative effect. Which I have rebuted.

Sorry for the horrific format, I wanted to be sure I responded to every detail he made.

Back to you, ReformedArsenal.
ReformedArsenal

Con

1) "How is it a benefit? We obviously know that they cannot reproduce" - My opponent acknowledges that homosexuality is a dentriment to reproductive fitness.

2) "My oponent in that case would be corect as [homosexuality] is not occuring in the natural habitat of Antarctica" - My opponent is ackowledging that in the case of gay animals in zoos, that these animals are not gay in natural settings.

3) "My opponent gives no sources." - I do not need sources, your sources show that when given the option between maintaining non-sexual interaction with opposite gender anima or reproducing, they will select reproduction.

4) "Obviously" - My opponent acknowledges that gay animals cannot pass their genes into the next generation.

5) "But what determines bad or good." - Evolutionary Science determines that mutations that increase fitness are beneficial (good) while mutations that decrease fitness are dentrimental (bad). Note, in point 1 my opponent has acknowledged that homosexuality is a detriment to reproductive fitness.

6) "If it makes that person happy, why not? It is are dentremental to force someone to be in a relationship they do not want to be in than to allow for their homosexual behaviors." - Happiness is irellevant to evolutionary science. What is relevant is if a given mutation is beneficial to reproductive fitness.

7) "Illogical because it would be impossible" - My opponent has again confirmed that it is impossible for any sexual animals to reproduce without mating in a heterosexual couple, therefore reducing a homosexual animal's fitness to zero.

8) "True. But in any case, it shows that homosexuals in animals can be fi for parenting." - First, this does not show this. It shows that in penguins it is the case. This is a hasty generalization. How would a male mammal provide food for their milk drinking adopted offspring? Second, fitness for parenting is not the same thing as fitness for reproduction. We have several instances of animals in nature that are horrible parents, but have extremely high reproductive fitness (Lizards that abandon their infants, most fish, etc)

9) "My opponent admits that repoduction is not the purpose of sex." - This is incorrect, what I 'admited' ws that reproduction is not the ONLY purpose of sex.

10) "Uh, yes." - My opponent has confirmed that I understand resolution correctly.

11) "Correct" - My opponent has confirmed that I must simply provide a secular perspective in which there is a compelling argument against homosexuality.

12) "But it has been rebutted" - As we have seen from the previous points, my opponent has attempted to rebutt my arguments. However, he has not. He has not shown that Evolutionary Science would not argue against homosexuality.

13) "That may be true, however, as I have shown examples of homosexuality in animls, there is no reason why it goes against evolution." - In point 2 my opponent has acknowledged that the penguins in question are not engaging in homosexual activity outside of artificial contexts. In addition, in point 3 my opponent has failed to rebutt my point that when given the choice between remaining exclusively homosexual without reproductive possibilities and engaging in heterosexual sex and procreating, the animals in question opt for the later option.

14) "True However, that would require divorce." - Irrelevant point

15) "Okay, hypotehtical question, if two males are sterile, then would it still be bad to display homosexual behavior?" - I will concede this point: Evolutionary Science would not negatively view two sterile individuals mating with members of the same gender. However, this accounts for such a small percentage of persons in question, that it is statistically irrelevant. Given that aproximately 2% of the male population is sterile [A] and 20% of the male population is gay [B]. That means that aproximately 0.4% of the male population is both gay and sterile (statistically speaking). Evolutionary Science would say that those individual species are in themselves a dentriment to the reproductive fitness of the species andare inherently "bad."

16) "Exactly what I've been trying to argue this entire time." - My opponent is arguing my point, he agrees that in terms of Evolution it would be better for a reproduction-capable partner to leave a non-reproduction-capable partner in favor of another reproduction-capable partner. To translate to this to our context... Evolution would say that it is better for a gay man to leave his gay partner (non-reproduction-capable in the relationship they are in) in favor of a heterosexual partner that makes the relationship capable of reproducing.

17) "Which means that it is wrong and you have contradicted yourself." - Note that my opponent has split a sentence in order to make my statements appear contradictory. What I am identifying as "bad" is the refusal to mate with members of the opposite gender for the sake of reproduction. Homosexuality is defined as "sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex." [C] If a given organism mates with both sexes they aret homosexual, they are bisexual. This debate is not concerned with the rightness or wrongness of bisexual organisims, only with exclusively homosexual beings.

18) "Again, it is worse to force someone to love somoene they cannot love just to reproduce." - This may be true from SOME perspectives, but not from an Evolutionary Science perspective which values reproductive fitness above other things. Happiness, Love, Joy, Lack of Pain. All of these things are valuable in other perspectives, but not in the one I am representing.

19) "And if your perspective is wrong?" - Irrelevant to this debate

20) "You are correct" - My opponetn is acknowleding that my assertion in 19 is justfied.

21) "Which I have rebutted." - We have not seen an adequate rebuttal. The only adequate rebuttal that my opponent could give would be to show that homosexuality in reproduction-capable animals is either A) Causes no dentriment in the reproductive fitness of an animal (either in the individual animal or in the species as a whole) or B) Is a benefit to the reproductive fitness of an animal. Since he has not shown either, he has not successfully rebutted my argument.

Thank you for reading.

[A] http://www.wired.com...
[B] http://www.gallup.com...
[C] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 4
MilitantAtheist

Pro

I again thank my opponent for his super quick reply. Before I begin rebutting, I'd like to point out something I missed this entire debate.

In a nutshell, my opponent has been arguing that since it is impossible for genes to be passed on and for homosexuals to reproduce, it is bad for humans to display homosexual behaviours.

I disagree with this.
My opponent forgets that we are living in the 21st century with the technology to implant sperms. So, theoretically, if one is a homosexual, he can take his sperm and have it implanted into a lesbian. Therefore, that will fulfill how that it not bad.


    1. ^ Adams, Robert, M.D."invitro fertilization technique", Monterey, CA, 1988


My opponent may argue that I contradicted myself, however, I agreed that it was impossible for homosexuals to have children by having sex with the same gender. Artificial insimination does not happen sexually.

1) "How is it a benefit? We obviously know that they cannot reproduce" - My opponent acknowledges that homosexuality is a dentriment to reproductive fitness. Not what I meant. Please read the above statment about artifical insimination. Two members of the same gender cannot reproduce sexually.

2) "My oponent in that case would be corect as [homosexuality] is not occuring in the natural habitat of Antarctica" - My opponent is ackowledging that in the case of gay animals in zoos, that these animals are not gay in natural settings. Correct. But why can't it happen in nature.


5) "But what determines bad or good." - Evolutionary Science determines that mutations that increase fitness are beneficial (good) while mutations that decrease fitness are dentrimental (bad). Note, in point 1 my opponent has acknowledged that homosexuality is a detriment to reproductive fitness. Pointed out in opening stance that homosexuality can be "Good" by still reproducing.

7) "Illogical because it would be impossible" - My opponent has again confirmed that it is impossible for any sexual animals to reproduce without mating in a heterosexual couple, therefore reducing a homosexual animal's fitness to zero. Seually, that would be. Two members of the same gender cannot have sex and expect to reproduce except they get artifically implanted with gametes. A male can supply the sperm and the woman the egg.


9) "My opponent admits that repoduction is not the purpose of sex." - This is incorrect, what I 'admited' ws that reproduction is not the ONLY purpose of sex. Ah, I misunderstood you. Please accept my appologies.

21) "Which I have rebutted." - We have not seen an adequate rebuttal. The only adequate rebuttal that my opponent could give would be to show that homosexuality in reproduction-capable animals is either A) Causes no dentriment in the reproductive fitness of an animal (either in the individual animal or in the species as a whole) or B) Is a benefit to the reproductive fitness of an animal. Since he has not shown either, he has not successfully rebutted my argument.

Your argument that "Evolution defines "Good" as "Contributing to Reproductive Fitness" and "Bad" as "Detracting from Reproductive Fitness." Homsexuality detracts from Reproductive Fitness, so therefore homosexuality is "bad" in the eyes of Evolutionary Science", no longer stands as I have shown you how it can be good if they contribute to reproductive fitness from artifical spermination.

I have proved that it was possible for homosexuals to fullfill that "Good" as my opponent was assirting this entire debate. I wish I would have pointed that out earlier.
ReformedArsenal

Con

My opponent has rebutted my argument by stating that it is possible for human beings to reproduce by implanting sperm into a woman. He therefore argues that homosexuals are able to reproduce and that their behavior is not dentrimental to their overall reproductive fitness.

Allow me to explain where my opponent's error comes in.

Imagine that tomorrow some cataclysmic event takes place and wipes out technology as we know it? How then does the reproductive fitness look? Back to zero.

Perhaps you would like something a little less extraordinary. No problem. According to babycenter.com the average cost of one cycle of in vitro fertilization is $12,400 per treatment (attempt). The same website notes "On average, you have a 35 percent chance of getting pregnant and a 28 percent possibility of delivering a baby with each cycle of treatment." So statistically, it could take 3 cycles to get pregnant for a total of $37,200. Beyond that, it could take 4 cycles to actually deliver a baby to term, for total potential cost of $49,600 [A]. Furthermore, this process would require a willing woman to serve as the "host" potentially 4 times.

While I will admit that this does not reduce the reproductive fitness to zero for healthy adult males or females, it dramatically reduces the overall fitness of that individual (and therefore negatively impacts the reproductive fitness of the whole species). Regardless of the magnitude of the drop, any loss of reproductive fitness is seen as a dentriment (bad) by the evolutionary science perpective I have brought forward.

1) Rebutted above

2) I'm not saying it cannot happen in nature... however if it did happen in nature those animals would be selected out of the species by Natural Selection as it is impossible for penguins in nature to reproduce without a heterosexual partner.

5) Rebutted above

7) Rebutted above

21) My opponent has shown that the reproductive fitness does not drop to zero for healthy adult homosexual males, provided they can afford the extreme expense of In Vitro Fertilization and can also find a woman who is willing to serve as a host for the child. However, any reduction in reproductive fitness has a higher "bad" value than non-reduction in reproductive fitness. Ergo, loss is still worse than non-loss, and my point still stands.

To conclude:

I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting and respectful debate. It is clear that he feels strongly about this topic an I appreciate the work that has gone into this debate. However, the resolution states "There are no compelling scular arguments against homosexuality." Since I have shown that from at least one secular perspecive (Evolutionary Science) views exclusive homosexuality (that is an organisim that only mates with members of like gender) as "worse" than heterosexuality the resolution does not stand. If one were to make decisions based soley on the guidelines of what is determined beneficial to evolution and natural selection they would be compelled to engage in heterosexual intercourse with as many individuals as possible and refrain from engaging in intercourse with any individual that would be incapable of producing offspring and therefore passing their genes into the next generation.

In short, Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof and I have sucessfully proven the resolution false. In view of this fact I urge you to vote con in this debate.

[A] http://www.babycenter.com...
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
People need to really stop using Roy and Silo (the "gay" penguins at the new york zoo).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk...

What happened was that they were LOOKING for girls, but couldn't find one, so they paired together. Silo is now paired with a female and reproducing. So either homosexuality is a choice, or the penguins were never gay to begin with.
Posted by MilitantAtheist 5 years ago
MilitantAtheist
not a prob. I greatly GREATLY appologize for the inconvienence.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
I appreciate that Militant, thank you.
Posted by MilitantAtheist 5 years ago
MilitantAtheist
What I will do is reopen the kohai account just to forfeit.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
True, but that makes it less interesting for me. Also, I have to wait over a week for the debate to finish because each argument has been given three days to happen. I have to wait for three whole days for Kohai to forfeit again. It's kind of annoying.
Posted by MilitantAtheist 5 years ago
MilitantAtheist
oh really? You haven't even argued yet breakign the agreement.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
KeytarHero...

That just means it's an easy win.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
I will definitely not join any debates started by Kohai/Agnostic86/MilitantAtheist/whatever other user names he goes by. I'm stuck in a debate he forfeited because he closed his account. He started a five-round debate and forfeited in the second round.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
If you are a private person, do not join a debating website that requires you to disclose your age.

You are lying to people and that makes you a dubious debater.
Posted by MilitantAtheist 5 years ago
MilitantAtheist
ReformedArsenal, maybe, but I am a private person and do not want people to know all the details about me.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by joshizinfamous 5 years ago
joshizinfamous
MilitantAtheistReformedArsenalTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had the arguments and proper evidence.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
MilitantAtheistReformedArsenalTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: What constitutes an "argument against"? Neither side tried to define that at the outset. The result was meaningless discussion. Are there "compelling arguments against" heterosexuality? Depends how it's defined.
Vote Placed by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
MilitantAtheistReformedArsenalTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: I point for the no posting of argument in round 1, then he had generally more convincing arguments and Pro used unreliable sources.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
MilitantAtheistReformedArsenalTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: One pt to Pro for RA missing the rules in the OP, but that went quick back due to the insane formatting by MA in the later rounds. RA's argument was basically untouched. There are arguments for homosexuality from an evolutionary standpoint (population control for example) but Pro never made them or even asked the obvious question that if homosexuality is such a negative then why are there homosexuals everywhere how come it was not selected out? 4:1 Con
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
MilitantAtheistReformedArsenalTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con really won this based on semantics, so that cost him the conduct point. However, the debate pretty much was screaming to allow a semantics argument, and so Con didn't go so far over the edge to actually lose theargments from it. For sources, Pro used out dated sources that contained mis-information, see comments.