The Instigator
Benshapiro
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wrichcirw
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

You can be gay and straight at the same time.

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 5 votes the winner is...
wrichcirw
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,261 times Debate No: 36174
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

Benshapiro

Pro

Round 1 is for acceptance
wrichcirw

Con

lol whoops, didn't mean to accept this.
Debate Round No. 1
Benshapiro

Pro

Thank you for your acceptance.

You can be gay and straight at the same time.

"can be" meaning that all I have to do is prove that it is possible in one scenario.

"gay" has more than one definition. One defiintion is relating to happiness and the other is relating to sexual orientation. [1]

"straight" also has more than one definition. One definition is relating to angle and the other is relating to sexual orientation. [2]


So a gay (happy) person can be straight (sexual orientation).

SOURCES:

http://www.merriam-webster.com... [1]
http://www.merriam-webster.com...;[2]
wrichcirw

Con

PRO did not define "gay" and "straight" in round #1, so I have no reason to accept his definitions. They are subject to debate.

PRO is clearly setting up a dichotomy between heterosexual and homosexual, but is attempting a semantics curveball by changing the definitions to however he sees fit. The implication inherent in comparing the two words is much more prevalent in discussions about differing sexual orientations, not a juxtoposition of temperament and sexual orientation.

Is it possible to be gay (i.e. homosexual) and straight (heterosexual) at the same time? No. Bisexuals [1] are neither homosexual [2] (i.e. oriented ONLY with the same sex) nor heterosexual [3] (i.e. oriented ONLY with the opposing sex). Bisexuals are bisexuals...they are oriented towards BOTH sexes.

Similarly, grey is not black AND white...grey is grey. Warm is not hot AND cold...warm is warm. etc...

---

In case anyone requires that I at least address my opponent's argument, technically (since his argument rests on a technicality), a gay (happy) person can NOT be straight (sexual orientation) at the same time. Even if someone is happy while desiring heterosexual intercourse, the person will also be hungry, tired, excited, scared, etc...i.e. the person will be more than just gay and straight. It is not possible to be just "gay and straight" at any time because you will also either be hungry or not hungry, tired or not tired, excited or not excited, etc...

If you are gay, straight, and hungry, you are not gay and straight.

If you are gay, straight, and not hungry, you are not gay and straight.

Since you will necessarily be either hungry or not hungry at any time, you cannot be "gay and straight".

It's a stupid technicality, but let's face it, this is a trolling debate based upon a stupid technicality.

Finally, I ask that my opponent get docked conduct for posting a one-round debate. Thank you.


[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
You mean a bi-sexual?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
BenshapirowrichcirwTied
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: And this is why the instigator should define terms at the beginning. Pulling the semantic switcheroo isn't cool. :P
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Skeptikitten
BenshapirowrichcirwTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: A rather transparent attempt to secure a win by underhanded means, with a semantics game not defined in the resolution.
Vote Placed by KroneckerDelta 3 years ago
KroneckerDelta
BenshapirowrichcirwTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: No contest. It was reasonable, upon accepting, that this was a debate over homosexuality vs. heterosexuality and whether someone could exhibit behaviors of both. Con wins with their first sentence: Pro did not define "gay" and "straight" in the round for acceptance and thus Con has no reason to accept ANY definitions, much less ridiculous definitions. After this any argument Con offers must be accepted towards the reasonable definition of terms.
Vote Placed by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
BenshapirowrichcirwTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: While the resolution is true with the relative definitions (Bi-sexual people are both by definition), Pro's semantics ploy is unnecessarily underhanded, and makes for a weaker argument.
Vote Placed by Piccini 3 years ago
Piccini
BenshapirowrichcirwTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con successfully rebutted the shameful attempt of semantics win. Conduct to Con, as Pro purposely used ambiguity.