Is Sexual Orientation determined at birth?

Yeah.

Sorry - I just re read my vote: I simply got pro and con mixed up - it’s actually con that I felt made near trolling arguments

I didn't really think anybody was trolling. And I agree that I lost the debate. There. Concession.

Your two main arguments : that it is determined before birth, and that children don’t know their sexual orientation are very left field arguments against the resolution. The first seems like semantic trickery, and the second just seems silly. I don’t think it was trolling, hence why I didn’t give you a conduct violation, but the arguments we’re a bit obtuse.

Thanks for the vote.
However, you said I was bordering on trolling? Can you please explain where, as this was not my intention?

Great debate, cool topic, no offense to con, debate was really fun to read and vote on.

vote pls

Given neither defined the parameters of the debate, it is logical to conclude the parameters are set by the diction in the description and title.

Any reasonable person can see there's a difference between "determined at birth" and "aware of at birth" or "present at birth". If the debate title was worded with one of the latter two diction choices, the instigator would be winning. As it stands, it seems very much so they are moving the goalposts of what the debate was supposed to be.

That said, though, perhaps there's a case to be made here, Technically one's genes are decided at the fertilization of an egg, not birth. Anyhow, seems this debate has turned into a huge semantics debate now. Hate when that happens.

If you read my comment, which I increasingly doubt that you did, you should have noted that I said something along the lines of ‘a great STARTING POINT’ is the wiki article. The BoP is shared in this debate. Your sources, I must say, are plentiful.

THE TIME IS NOW

Pay attention

Ohhh, so the Wikipedia article is your source. Sorry

lol, you read my mind.

I might not have been clear in my comments. I'm not saying this is my position, i'm just posing an argument from the other side-- the side of someone who believes there to be a genetic reason/determination for homosexuality, aka the "gay gene". The crux of the argument would be, genetic makeup is determined at conception, not at birth. It is not at birth, but rather conception when the genetic makeup is formed and various traits are determined. Now, these traits may not reveal themselves to later on after conception (i.e. AFTER they are determined), such as eye color, hair color, biological sex (which I still call gender), etc. NOw if someone were arguing there is such a thing as a "gay gene", then it follows that this "gay gene" would be determined at conception, but revealed later on.

Again, this is not my position, but I'm just posing it as a point of discussion.

Hope this clarifies it.

Did you read round 2?

'If there is a gay gene, then this gene is part of the genetic code at conception, and would not be determined at birth, but rather revealed at some point in the child's life. Much the way eye color, hair color, etc are determined at conception and revealed (not determined) at some later point in time (birth, toddler years, adulthood, etc).

Determined and revealed are not the same thing. In this case, for example, the child's sexuality is DETERMINED by the time of birth, but REVEALED later on. If this is what you are actually saying I agree, apologies though because I am tired and had trouble completely wrapping my head around that one.

just read your last argument, i think we are saying the same thing lol

Nope, that's not what i'm stating. I was playing Devil's Advocate. For starters, I don't believe a Gay Gene exists, so no you can't be "gay" before birth. But let's just say there is a gene that determines sexual orientation. Again, let me repeat- i don't think there is one, this is just for the sake of argument. If there. IF, and it's a big unvalidated IF, there is a gay gene, then this gene is part of the genetic code at conception, and would not be determined at birth, but rather revealed at some point in the child's life. Much the way eye color, hair color, etc are determined at conception and revealed (not determined) at some later point in time (birth, toddler years, adulthood, etc).

My point being, if the "gay gene" is the foundation of your argument, the answer to the debate question would be no, it's not determined at birth.

But again, this is un-substantiated assertion that there exists a gene that determines orientation.

Whoops, forgot to add this to my argument. My opponent hasn't stated his sources for his study.

So, technically, you can be gay before birth.

I would further add that nothing is "determined" at birth, but rather "revealed" at birth. A baby's biological sex is not "determined" at birth, but rather revealed at birth (sometimes before birth via ultrasound). When a doctor proclaims "It's a boy" or "It's a girl!", they are not "determining" the child's gender, but rather revealing it based on what we, as a society have determined what makes up a boy (male) or a girl (female).

Now if we are sticking to semantics, say there is a "gay gene". Science is still on the fence on this one, but say, for the sake of argument, there is a "gay gene". I don't hold this belief personally, but let's just say there is one. I'm not a geneticist, but it is my understanding that genes are not made at birth. Rather, the genetic code is determined at, you guessed it...conception. So if anything the sexual orientation would not be "determined" at birth, but rather "revealed" at birth. But this doesn't seem logical or possible-- it would technically be right to argue that the orientation is "revealed" later.

So technically speaking, if there was a "gay gene", the sexual orientation would technically not be determined at birth, but rather when the genetic code is made (conception).

This would've been fun to debate. Some thoughts. Words are important:

Sexual orientation is basically a desire or tendency towards a center type of person to satisfy a need for sexual gratification. Is this "determined" at birth? I would say No. As an analogy, we have a desire to feed our bodies, to satisfy a biological urge. This is innate. Yet, how we choose to satisfy this urge is primarily based on what we learn or experience. Some choose to satisfy this desire to eat by eating Steaks...some choose to satisfy this desire by eating Fish.....Some choose to satisfy this desire by eating berries and nuts. The need to satisfy an urge, be it eating, drinking or having sex, might be innate, but what we lean towards (i.e. what type of foods, what type of drinks, what type of people) I would argue is not innate. I might even go so far as to argue that if anything makes sense to be innate, it would be the heterosexual desire, because this, after all is what propagates the species.

When?

the question I said before,

What question does my argument stunt?

Now I'm confused, are you gatorade lol?
Yes I am

Wait, were you on DDO? Because I recognize the username.

Your argument stunts that question. Sorry if I made it unclear.

Last I checked, the debate's question is 'Is Sexual Orientation determined at birth?' If you can see any relation to knowledge within said question or description, go ahead.

Thing is though, gato, that you were not explicit. The most common connotation of the verb 'determined' in this context, links to determinism, as in, pre determined. That is the implication. What you are doing, sir, is changing the definition and the derivative of the word to suit your argument, in a rather similar way to Jordan Peterson. What is clear is that you are, as @bmdrocks21 put it, 'looking for an easy win,' by titling your debate one way and arguing from a completely different perspective - deliberately misleading and confusing. If you meant 'Is Sexual Orientation known about at birth?' say that. Don't use the word 'determined,' with its completely different connotations and definition, if you mean knowledge. They are no where near the same thing.

Admittedly, it is rather fun when your opponent changes the parameters of the debate halfway through in order to suit his side of the argument. No, we were not talking about 'the time that the child knows that he is homo or heterosexual,' because the factor of knowledge was not once mentioned, and, of course, the title of the debate:
Is Sexual Orientation determined at birth?

He didn't change any of the parameters of the debate. Your debate argument's question is: "Is Sexual Orientation Determined When One Knows it, or if One is Destined to Be it?

Firstly, I must contend the use of the verb 'decide,' which begs the question. Secondly, my opponent demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of what 'born x way' really means. It does not mean that, at the point of birth, a baby just is gay or straight, it means that that child has the genetic code, if you like, that will 'make the child gay' (for lack of better phrasing) during puberty and later development.

What's your evidence that a child is born with the genetic code to be gay or straight during the adolescent years?

I have not changed this ever, it was implied from the very beginning, you clearly do not understand the equivocation fallacy. The definition of the equivocation fallacy is this: "equivocation is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion." And I have not changed the direction of this debate and have implied the same meaning over the course of the entire debate. You have taken the title (and description) in a completely different way.

As ‘determined’ is the verb in the title, we use that definition. According to google, definition 1 of determine/d is “cause (something) to occur in a particular way or to have a particular nature.” An equivocation fallacy wont help you here. As you seem confused by the contextualisation of word definitions, we can word your title in its implicit meaning, to make it far more explicit - has sexual orientation been determined at the point of birth. That is the implied direction of this debate taken by your title. You cannot change this in round 2, that is cheating.

Determined means to "firmly decide" or "DECIDE".

Thanks bm, the description says nothing about knowledge, just ‘determined.’ And determined usually, as the verb, means “cause (something) to occur in a particular way or to have a particular nature.” This clearly has nothing to do with knowledge.
Oh, and Gatorade, changing the parameters of the debate half way through is usually called cheating.

But as I said, nowhere in the description did you say this was about conscious thoughts. You never defined "determined"

And, as I said, we are talking about the point of which they know if they are gay. So, as you said, they do not know that they are gay.

They are either gay or not, but they don't know it.

Do you really think that babies actually know that they are gay, from the moment they are born?

I would have figured it was a joke if you weren't taking the argument you are. Babies don't say anything btw, so don't know where you were going with that

The free wins bit was a joke, :P, I'm sorry if you thought that I actually just wanted free wins. And, I did say something about if the person knows or doesn't know if he is gay, in the description (if you didn't see it). "Are LGBTQ people actually who they say they are? Yes. "

Yeah, did you see his comment below? Apparently he just wants free wins, not an actual debate. He should have snuck something into the description if he wanted to pull that kind of crap

When you don't actually read the argument.

But it WAS determined by their genetics at birth, so... no...? Not a free win. Nice try, though. :P

Yes, because the debate title was "Is sexual orientation determined AT birth". Lol, free wins am I right? But, his point was that children decide their "gayness" at puberty which is years ahead of being one second old. So, he DID still concede. So, I win. yay.

Boy! You are going to pretend that your opponent has to prove a one-second-old child can make a conscious decision about being gay?

Mad cuz bad? I would have preferred a civilized exchange of ideas, yet you have blatantly lied and acted in a rather barbaric manner. You quote me as saying that gay=urges. Then you quote me as saying nature is the urges part, which is why I attribute homosexuality to nature. So, in what way did I flip flop?

If I misread anything you said, I would attribute that to your incorrectly spelled words, missing commas, etc.

I stated that you talked past me. That is because you defined homosexuality in a different way, which I acknowledged. Had you understood that, you wouldn't have lashed out in anger for no reason.

I will leave it at that. Take care. :)

This conversation is over. I have clearly shown just how incapable you are. You can keep talking but I ain't responding to this topic given your "arguments".

>>Not a straw man.

You said something that if you read what I was saying you would've realized it was wrong. Either you memory is bad, you like to selectively read and fill in things you like or can't read. I'll go with the second option. I only copied this given you didn't defend the blatant straw-man and is more likely intentional than unintentional.

>>We aren't talking about labeling people as gay. We are talking about people actually being gay (same sex attraction=gay).

How do we label things? One way is by seeing an action and labeling it as such. If someone is moving really fast they are running. Can't believe you don't even understand this. If we don't label someone being gay we wouldn't know what the person is until they have met a criteria like honestly state what they are or perceive an action.

>> Then you conceded that straight people can commit these same-sex acts. People can also lie, so these examples you provided are inadequate.

Inadequate? Your entire position is inadequate and you defend your laughable misrepresentation with muh "Not a straw man". You call my position inadequate yet you can't give a better way of measuring it. You conceded that your position is less than inadqueate. Glad I know we are on the same page.

>>My position is that nurture plays a very large role as to whether or not they act on these urges, but nature causes the urges. Urges are what makes someone gay.

You made this up right now. Where was this claim earlier mister I am going to flip flop on my positions?
You said: I'm more of a 80-90% nature kind of person for most issues
Yet here you said it is mostly Nurture.

You've shown that you like changing your mind even when you have seen evidence to show your change in my. Like committing intentional straw-men, don't even understand ways that we assign labels and conceded your position is less than inadequate.