Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Logical debating is essentially fighting

Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2014 1:02:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Been thinking about debating and came to the conclusion that it's all just fighting, there's no way to objectively come to the truth when all you have is subjectivity. The purpose of debate.org is not to come to a peace agreement, the purpose is to fight and whoever skillfully defeats their opponent wins the match. That's why we have voting, judges, etc. That's why in these forms of logic there are "arguments" which simply translate to "attacks" and "counter-arguments" to "counter-attacks." Most of the time, people won't come to a conclusion, but a winner will be decided. Thoughts?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 9:02:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/6/2014 1:02:52 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Been thinking about debating and came to the conclusion that it's all just fighting, there's no way to objectively come to the truth when all you have is subjectivity. The purpose of debate.org is not to come to a peace agreement, the purpose is to fight and whoever skillfully defeats their opponent wins the match. That's why we have voting, judges, etc. That's why in these forms of logic there are "arguments" which simply translate to "attacks" and "counter-arguments" to "counter-attacks." Most of the time, people won't come to a conclusion, but a winner will be decided. Thoughts?

Debating is as much fighting as a mini-golfing between two people is fighting.
Nolite Timere
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 9:06:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 9:02:45 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/6/2014 1:02:52 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Been thinking about debating and came to the conclusion that it's all just fighting, there's no way to objectively come to the truth when all you have is subjectivity. The purpose of debate.org is not to come to a peace agreement, the purpose is to fight and whoever skillfully defeats their opponent wins the match. That's why we have voting, judges, etc. That's why in these forms of logic there are "arguments" which simply translate to "attacks" and "counter-arguments" to "counter-attacks." Most of the time, people won't come to a conclusion, but a winner will be decided. Thoughts?

Debating is as much fighting as a mini-golfing between two people is fighting.

You said it
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 9:50:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/6/2014 1:02:52 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Been thinking about debating and came to the conclusion that it's all just fighting, there's no way to objectively come to the truth when all you have is subjectivity. The purpose of debate.org is not to come to a peace agreement, the purpose is to fight and whoever skillfully defeats their opponent wins the match. That's why we have voting, judges, etc. That's why in these forms of logic there are "arguments" which simply translate to "attacks" and "counter-arguments" to "counter-attacks." Most of the time, people won't come to a conclusion, but a winner will be decided. Thoughts?

No. Just no.

So I have a question for you. Since we can't find the objective truth, because everything is viewed subjectively, how did you come to that objective truth? Isn't that assuming that you CAN come to objective truth through your subjective opinion?

P1: No statement can be established as objectively true
P2: The statement above is a statement
C: The statement above cannot be established as objectively true

So your whole argument is self-defeating pretty much. So yeah... we can't know any objective truth, and it's all pointless, and that's pretty much the objective truth. Take it or leave it. #sarcasm
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 9:53:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 9:50:12 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/6/2014 1:02:52 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Been thinking about debating and came to the conclusion that it's all just fighting, there's no way to objectively come to the truth when all you have is subjectivity. The purpose of debate.org is not to come to a peace agreement, the purpose is to fight and whoever skillfully defeats their opponent wins the match. That's why we have voting, judges, etc. That's why in these forms of logic there are "arguments" which simply translate to "attacks" and "counter-arguments" to "counter-attacks." Most of the time, people won't come to a conclusion, but a winner will be decided. Thoughts?

No. Just no.

So I have a question for you. Since we can't find the objective truth, because everything is viewed subjectively, how did you come to that objective truth? Isn't that assuming that you CAN come to objective truth through your subjective opinion?

P1: No statement can be established as objectively true
P2: The statement above is a statement
C: The statement above cannot be established as objectively true

So your whole argument is self-defeating pretty much. So yeah... we can't know any objective truth, and it's all pointless, and that's pretty much the objective truth. Take it or leave it. #sarcasm

By what measure is this statement objective? Someone can just reject it and that's that
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 9:56:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 9:53:15 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:50:12 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/6/2014 1:02:52 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Been thinking about debating and came to the conclusion that it's all just fighting, there's no way to objectively come to the truth when all you have is subjectivity. The purpose of debate.org is not to come to a peace agreement, the purpose is to fight and whoever skillfully defeats their opponent wins the match. That's why we have voting, judges, etc. That's why in these forms of logic there are "arguments" which simply translate to "attacks" and "counter-arguments" to "counter-attacks." Most of the time, people won't come to a conclusion, but a winner will be decided. Thoughts?

No. Just no.

So I have a question for you. Since we can't find the objective truth, because everything is viewed subjectively, how did you come to that objective truth? Isn't that assuming that you CAN come to objective truth through your subjective opinion?

P1: No statement can be established as objectively true
P2: The statement above is a statement
C: The statement above cannot be established as objectively true

So your whole argument is self-defeating pretty much. So yeah... we can't know any objective truth, and it's all pointless, and that's pretty much the objective truth. Take it or leave it. #sarcasm

By what measure is this statement objective? Someone can just reject it and that's that

Someone can reject that 2 + 2 = 4 but that doesn't meant it no longer equals four. In fact, whether someone accepts it or not 2 + 2 objectively equals four.
Nolite Timere
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 10:02:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 9:56:50 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:53:15 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:50:12 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/6/2014 1:02:52 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Been thinking about debating and came to the conclusion that it's all just fighting, there's no way to objectively come to the truth when all you have is subjectivity. The purpose of debate.org is not to come to a peace agreement, the purpose is to fight and whoever skillfully defeats their opponent wins the match. That's why we have voting, judges, etc. That's why in these forms of logic there are "arguments" which simply translate to "attacks" and "counter-arguments" to "counter-attacks." Most of the time, people won't come to a conclusion, but a winner will be decided. Thoughts?

No. Just no.

So I have a question for you. Since we can't find the objective truth, because everything is viewed subjectively, how did you come to that objective truth? Isn't that assuming that you CAN come to objective truth through your subjective opinion?

P1: No statement can be established as objectively true
P2: The statement above is a statement
C: The statement above cannot be established as objectively true

So your whole argument is self-defeating pretty much. So yeah... we can't know any objective truth, and it's all pointless, and that's pretty much the objective truth. Take it or leave it. #sarcasm

By what measure is this statement objective? Someone can just reject it and that's that

Someone can reject that 2 + 2 = 4 but that doesn't meant it no longer equals four. In fact, whether someone accepts it or not 2 + 2 objectively equals four.

maybe so, but I'm speaking more in terms of opinions. Take for example evolution, there are several things which are required to accept it as fact:1. observations 2.interpretation3. Data. not all scientist accept it, so how can you objectively find truth? If all it takes is rejection of it, we can all be biased. We are biased because we have certain axioms of how the world works.
AlexanderOc
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 10:06:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 10:02:30 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:56:50 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:53:15 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:50:12 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/6/2014 1:02:52 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Been thinking about debating and came to the conclusion that it's all just fighting, there's no way to objectively come to the truth when all you have is subjectivity. The purpose of debate.org is not to come to a peace agreement, the purpose is to fight and whoever skillfully defeats their opponent wins the match. That's why we have voting, judges, etc. That's why in these forms of logic there are "arguments" which simply translate to "attacks" and "counter-arguments" to "counter-attacks." Most of the time, people won't come to a conclusion, but a winner will be decided. Thoughts?

No. Just no.

So I have a question for you. Since we can't find the objective truth, because everything is viewed subjectively, how did you come to that objective truth? Isn't that assuming that you CAN come to objective truth through your subjective opinion?

P1: No statement can be established as objectively true
P2: The statement above is a statement
C: The statement above cannot be established as objectively true

So your whole argument is self-defeating pretty much. So yeah... we can't know any objective truth, and it's all pointless, and that's pretty much the objective truth. Take it or leave it. #sarcasm

By what measure is this statement objective? Someone can just reject it and that's that

Someone can reject that 2 + 2 = 4 but that doesn't meant it no longer equals four. In fact, whether someone accepts it or not 2 + 2 objectively equals four.

maybe so, but I'm speaking more in terms of opinions. Take for example evolution, there are several things which are required to accept it as fact:1. observations 2.interpretation3. Data. not all scientist accept it, so how can you objectively find truth? If all it takes is rejection of it, we can all be biased. We are biased because we have certain axioms of how the world works.

Nothing is required to be accepted to be taken as fact.
A scientist accepting Data doesn't make it fact. It's the logical bases on which it becomes fact because it can be shown true.
By the time you disagree with me, it's already too late.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 10:17:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 10:06:32 PM, AlexanderOc wrote:
At 8/7/2014 10:02:30 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:56:50 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:53:15 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:50:12 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/6/2014 1:02:52 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Been thinking about debating and came to the conclusion that it's all just fighting, there's no way to objectively come to the truth when all you have is subjectivity. The purpose of debate.org is not to come to a peace agreement, the purpose is to fight and whoever skillfully defeats their opponent wins the match. That's why we have voting, judges, etc. That's why in these forms of logic there are "arguments" which simply translate to "attacks" and "counter-arguments" to "counter-attacks." Most of the time, people won't come to a conclusion, but a winner will be decided. Thoughts?

No. Just no.

So I have a question for you. Since we can't find the objective truth, because everything is viewed subjectively, how did you come to that objective truth? Isn't that assuming that you CAN come to objective truth through your subjective opinion?

P1: No statement can be established as objectively true
P2: The statement above is a statement
C: The statement above cannot be established as objectively true

So your whole argument is self-defeating pretty much. So yeah... we can't know any objective truth, and it's all pointless, and that's pretty much the objective truth. Take it or leave it. #sarcasm

By what measure is this statement objective? Someone can just reject it and that's that

Someone can reject that 2 + 2 = 4 but that doesn't meant it no longer equals four. In fact, whether someone accepts it or not 2 + 2 objectively equals four.

maybe so, but I'm speaking more in terms of opinions. Take for example evolution, there are several things which are required to accept it as fact:1. observations 2.interpretation3. Data. not all scientist accept it, so how can you objectively find truth? If all it takes is rejection of it, we can all be biased. We are biased because we have certain axioms of how the world works.

Nothing is required to be accepted to be taken as fact.
A scientist accepting Data doesn't make it fact. It's the logical bases on which it becomes fact because it can be shown true.

in science, there's a difference between a fact and a theory. A fact is just a fact, but a theory is an explanation involving interpretation of how the world works. of course in debates, people can bring their own facts and interpretations, but how do we decide who is right?
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 10:21:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 9:53:15 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:50:12 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/6/2014 1:02:52 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Been thinking about debating and came to the conclusion that it's all just fighting, there's no way to objectively come to the truth when all you have is subjectivity. The purpose of debate.org is not to come to a peace agreement, the purpose is to fight and whoever skillfully defeats their opponent wins the match. That's why we have voting, judges, etc. That's why in these forms of logic there are "arguments" which simply translate to "attacks" and "counter-arguments" to "counter-attacks." Most of the time, people won't come to a conclusion, but a winner will be decided. Thoughts?

No. Just no.

So I have a question for you. Since we can't find the objective truth, because everything is viewed subjectively, how did you come to that objective truth? Isn't that assuming that you CAN come to objective truth through your subjective opinion?

P1: No statement can be established as objectively true
P2: The statement above is a statement
C: The statement above cannot be established as objectively true

So your whole argument is self-defeating pretty much. So yeah... we can't know any objective truth, and it's all pointless, and that's pretty much the objective truth. Take it or leave it. #sarcasm

By what measure is this statement objective? Someone can just reject it and that's that

That's the point. We have to assume we can come to objective truth. Even if we assume we can't get to objective truth, as you argue, we have to assume that's the objective truth.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2014 10:27:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 10:21:46 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:53:15 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:50:12 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/6/2014 1:02:52 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Been thinking about debating and came to the conclusion that it's all just fighting, there's no way to objectively come to the truth when all you have is subjectivity. The purpose of debate.org is not to come to a peace agreement, the purpose is to fight and whoever skillfully defeats their opponent wins the match. That's why we have voting, judges, etc. That's why in these forms of logic there are "arguments" which simply translate to "attacks" and "counter-arguments" to "counter-attacks." Most of the time, people won't come to a conclusion, but a winner will be decided. Thoughts?

No. Just no.

So I have a question for you. Since we can't find the objective truth, because everything is viewed subjectively, how did you come to that objective truth? Isn't that assuming that you CAN come to objective truth through your subjective opinion?

P1: No statement can be established as objectively true
P2: The statement above is a statement
C: The statement above cannot be established as objectively true

So your whole argument is self-defeating pretty much. So yeah... we can't know any objective truth, and it's all pointless, and that's pretty much the objective truth. Take it or leave it. #sarcasm

By what measure is this statement objective? Someone can just reject it and that's that

That's the point. We have to assume we can come to objective truth. Even if we assume we can't get to objective truth, as you argue, we have to assume that's the objective truth.

so what if someone believes that reality is really an illusion?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 9:54:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/6/2014 1:02:52 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Been thinking about debating and came to the conclusion that it's all just fighting, there's no way to objectively come to the truth when all you have is subjectivity. The purpose of debate.org is not to come to a peace agreement, the purpose is to fight and whoever skillfully defeats their opponent wins the match. That's why we have voting, judges, etc. That's why in these forms of logic there are "arguments" which simply translate to "attacks" and "counter-arguments" to "counter-attacks." Most of the time, people won't come to a conclusion, but a winner will be decided. Thoughts?

Logical debating has no inherent purpose, the purpose is whatever you want it to be. If fighting is all you want to get out of it then so be it. I enjoy the competition but my greater motivation is being pushed to consider things at a level much deeper then I ever have before. That makes me feel more enlightened about the world I live in, and the process is strangely entertaining.

But if all you want out of it is a fight then do you.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 9:54:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 9:54:25 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/6/2014 1:02:52 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Been thinking about debating and came to the conclusion that it's all just fighting, there's no way to objectively come to the truth when all you have is subjectivity. The purpose of debate.org is not to come to a peace agreement, the purpose is to fight and whoever skillfully defeats their opponent wins the match. That's why we have voting, judges, etc. That's why in these forms of logic there are "arguments" which simply translate to "attacks" and "counter-arguments" to "counter-attacks." Most of the time, people won't come to a conclusion, but a winner will be decided. Thoughts?

Logical debating has no inherent purpose, the purpose is whatever you want it to be. If fighting is all you want to get out of it then so be it. I enjoy the competition but my greater motivation is being pushed to consider things at a level much deeper then I ever have before. That makes me feel more enlightened about the world I live in, and the process is strangely entertaining.

But if all you want out of it is a fight then do you.

mmm, good point..
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 10:28:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/7/2014 10:27:43 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/7/2014 10:21:46 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:53:15 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:50:12 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/6/2014 1:02:52 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Been thinking about debating and came to the conclusion that it's all just fighting, there's no way to objectively come to the truth when all you have is subjectivity. The purpose of debate.org is not to come to a peace agreement, the purpose is to fight and whoever skillfully defeats their opponent wins the match. That's why we have voting, judges, etc. That's why in these forms of logic there are "arguments" which simply translate to "attacks" and "counter-arguments" to "counter-attacks." Most of the time, people won't come to a conclusion, but a winner will be decided. Thoughts?

No. Just no.

So I have a question for you. Since we can't find the objective truth, because everything is viewed subjectively, how did you come to that objective truth? Isn't that assuming that you CAN come to objective truth through your subjective opinion?

P1: No statement can be established as objectively true
P2: The statement above is a statement
C: The statement above cannot be established as objectively true

So your whole argument is self-defeating pretty much. So yeah... we can't know any objective truth, and it's all pointless, and that's pretty much the objective truth. Take it or leave it. #sarcasm

By what measure is this statement objective? Someone can just reject it and that's that

That's the point. We have to assume we can come to objective truth. Even if we assume we can't get to objective truth, as you argue, we have to assume that's the objective truth.

so what if someone believes that reality is really an illusion?

So what about it? Then they believe that's the objective truth, lol.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 10:28:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 10:28:27 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/7/2014 10:27:43 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/7/2014 10:21:46 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:53:15 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:50:12 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/6/2014 1:02:52 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Been thinking about debating and came to the conclusion that it's all just fighting, there's no way to objectively come to the truth when all you have is subjectivity. The purpose of debate.org is not to come to a peace agreement, the purpose is to fight and whoever skillfully defeats their opponent wins the match. That's why we have voting, judges, etc. That's why in these forms of logic there are "arguments" which simply translate to "attacks" and "counter-arguments" to "counter-attacks." Most of the time, people won't come to a conclusion, but a winner will be decided. Thoughts?

No. Just no.

So I have a question for you. Since we can't find the objective truth, because everything is viewed subjectively, how did you come to that objective truth? Isn't that assuming that you CAN come to objective truth through your subjective opinion?

P1: No statement can be established as objectively true
P2: The statement above is a statement
C: The statement above cannot be established as objectively true

So your whole argument is self-defeating pretty much. So yeah... we can't know any objective truth, and it's all pointless, and that's pretty much the objective truth. Take it or leave it. #sarcasm

By what measure is this statement objective? Someone can just reject it and that's that

That's the point. We have to assume we can come to objective truth. Even if we assume we can't get to objective truth, as you argue, we have to assume that's the objective truth.

so what if someone believes that reality is really an illusion?

So what about it? Then they believe that's the objective truth, lol.

Is that your objective truth?
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 10:32:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/9/2014 10:28:51 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/9/2014 10:28:27 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/7/2014 10:27:43 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/7/2014 10:21:46 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:53:15 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/7/2014 9:50:12 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/6/2014 1:02:52 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Been thinking about debating and came to the conclusion that it's all just fighting, there's no way to objectively come to the truth when all you have is subjectivity. The purpose of debate.org is not to come to a peace agreement, the purpose is to fight and whoever skillfully defeats their opponent wins the match. That's why we have voting, judges, etc. That's why in these forms of logic there are "arguments" which simply translate to "attacks" and "counter-arguments" to "counter-attacks." Most of the time, people won't come to a conclusion, but a winner will be decided. Thoughts?

No. Just no.

So I have a question for you. Since we can't find the objective truth, because everything is viewed subjectively, how did you come to that objective truth? Isn't that assuming that you CAN come to objective truth through your subjective opinion?

P1: No statement can be established as objectively true
P2: The statement above is a statement
C: The statement above cannot be established as objectively true

So your whole argument is self-defeating pretty much. So yeah... we can't know any objective truth, and it's all pointless, and that's pretty much the objective truth. Take it or leave it. #sarcasm

By what measure is this statement objective? Someone can just reject it and that's that

That's the point. We have to assume we can come to objective truth. Even if we assume we can't get to objective truth, as you argue, we have to assume that's the objective truth.

so what if someone believes that reality is really an illusion?

So what about it? Then they believe that's the objective truth, lol.

Is that your objective truth?

Well either they're correct or they're incorrect. It's not like I have my own "objective truth" and you have your own "objective truth" and they're both just as right. Either I'm right, or you're right.

Let me formalize an argument...

P1: Either all truth is subjective, or some truth is not subjective (contradictory statements)
P2: If all truth is subjective, then this must be objectively true, and complete subjectivism is false
P3: If some truth is not subjective, then complete subjectivism is false
C: In either case, complete subjectivism is false.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."