Instigator / Pro
7
1420
rating
395
debates
43.8%
won
Topic
#2320
The science of sex appeal makes homosexuality non-sense.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...
Barney
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
21
1815
rating
53
debates
100.0%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
The science of sex appeal makes homosexuality non-sense.
This documentary, "The science of sex appeal", which I highly recommend you watch in order to really debate this topic makes sense of heterosexuality. So much so in contrast, homosexuality doesn't make sense at all .
The best argument anyone can use against this topic is that everything in the documentary was heavily theorized or speculated.
The documentary goes on to say and accounts for all causes of attraction to specific body parts, smells, anatomical design and male versus female traits. Particularly traits that spring via puberty and hormones.
By the end of the documentary, you'll ask yourself a question. Something to the effect of " Well where does this leave homosexual attraction?"
Basically all of the studies in the documentary were pointing to one thing. That is baby making.
Please comment or send a message for questions and clarity.
Round 1
The description will serve as the first round.
Preamble:
I shall prove my case on only a single front:
- Homosexuality is not nonsense.
Burden of Proof
The resolution means homosexuality is an unintelligible concept since 2009 (the year of the documentary), so I should win if I prove it remains intelligible. Conversely, my opponent should win if he proves it is not intelligible.
Definitions
The description lacked certain key definitions, so to avoid semantic issues…
Merriam-Webster defines the following:
- Nonsense is “words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas.”
- Homosexuality is “sexual or romantic attraction to others of one's same sex.”
I. Homeosexuality is not nonsense:
The term homosexuality clearly had not ceased to have intelligible meaning as proved by the definition above and the self evidence continued existence of gay people [1], in spite of some documentary existing. Therefore the resolution is false.
Syllogism [2]
- P1: If homosexuality is nonsense, then men must not be attracted to each other.
- P2: Hot man on man sex continues!
- C1: Therefore, homosexuality is not nonsense.
Sex for pleasure
Sex is enjoyable even when not “baby making,” so people and animals have sex (hopefully not with each other but that ever happening also falsifies pro’s conclusion).
According to Discovery Magazine [3]:
There is also no shortage of examples where non-human sex has nothing to do with reproduction at all. Females of many species mate with males when they are non-fertile (marmosets for example). And same-sex sexual behavior, which is definitionally non-reproductive, occurs in every vertebrate species in which it has been looked for, along with some non-vertebrates (bedbugs, for example, or fruit flies).
Still on the rise
In 2018 the LGBT demographic reached 4.5% of the U.S. population. Comparatively, in 2012 it was only 3.5% [4]. So rather than all disappearing in 2009, their numbers continue to grow (no pun intended... or was it?).
In fact, even if gays secretly don’t exist, the concept is so popular that gay porn continues to be produced. The very existence of gay marriage also disproves the resolution, yet strangely in homophobic states where gay marriage is illegal so there should be the least gay people, those apparently hetero people watch more gay porn than non-homophobic states. As was reported by Pornhub Insights [5]:
The majority of states with a high percentage of gay viewers is in the South, where gay marriage is illegal in all states. Dixie loves dicks so much, that the percentage of gay viewers for every single state in the South is higher than the average of the legal gay marriage states.
Sources:
Round 2
"I shall prove my case on only a single front:
Homosexuality is not nonsense."
Stop right there. You're in an incorrect context already.
No where is it stated without a particular context that homosexuality is nonsense.
You have to falsify that the documentary didn't make sense of homosexuality.
"The resolution means homosexuality is an unintelligible concept since 2009 (the year of the documentary), so I should win if I prove it remains intelligible. Conversely, my opponent should win if he proves it is not intelligible."
You have to falsify that the documentary didn't make sense of homosexuality.
"I. Homeosexuality is not nonsense:
The term homosexuality clearly had not ceased to have intelligible meaning as proved by the definition above and the self evidence continued existence of gay people [1], in spite of some documentary existing. Therefore the resolution is false."
Please show where in the documentary, it made sense of homosexuality, directly or indirectly.
"Sex for pleasure
Sex is enjoyable even when not “baby making,” so people and animals have sex (hopefully not with each other but that ever happening also falsifies pro’s conclusion)."
What does this have to do with the documentary?
The basis of the debate is the documentary. Please affirm your viewing of it.
"According to Discovery Magazine [3]:"
This should be according to the documentary. This is disqualification worthy. You've hijacked the goal post.
The remainder of points are extraneous sources .
You haven't made one move to showing how the source material in the context of the debate makes sense of homosexuality.
You can just concede it doesn't and then go on speaking of other things out of basis for this exchange.
The documentary once again, explains heterosexuality down to a "T" that it leaves no room to account for any other sexuality.
The science of sex appeal is learning teleological explanations of physical, aesthetic, sexual attraction.
nulla. Pro’s case:
Pro has declined to even suggest any way the 2009 documentary has reduced homosexuality to nonsense, which the resolution mandates (not to be confused with men dating...).
The description even clarifies that viewing said documentary is optional (being a mere recommendation). Sure, it apparently makes sense of the breeding fetish (“baby making”) [1], but the claim that only one thing on the planet can make sense is the single worst example of a false dichotomy [2]. That’s like saying 2+2=4, therefore no other combinations of numbers can equal each other; or that a gay hottub orgy has at least four participants so it cannot have more.
I. Homeosexuality is not nonsense:
Extend. And given the context of this debate dealing with hot guys attracted to each other, to which to act on it they must first extend parts of themselves, pun fully intended!
Further, hetero’s are incapable of the same kind of love as extended gay men. It makes sense that people want love, and as Rick and Morty revealed, hetero girls are envious of the love that can only be experienced between gay men docking with each other, stating [3]:
Pro has declined to even suggest any way the 2009 documentary has reduced homosexuality to nonsense, which the resolution mandates (not to be confused with men dating...).
Extend. And given the context of this debate dealing with hot guys attracted to each other, to which to act on it they must first extend parts of themselves, pun fully intended!
“I want that kind of love like that docking kind of love. Like, penis in the foreskin kind of love Mm-hmm just, like, warm, just like…” -Tricia Lange
Pro’s counter case is a weak Kritik that he did not intend to debate the topic he selected. The resolution is that a 2009 documentary made homosexality nonsense, as opposed to the new claim that it merely neglected to explain why homosexuality makes sense.
As a reminder, thus far no evidence has been provided to support the resolution.
Round 3
"Pro has declined to even suggest any way the 2009 documentary has reduced homosexuality to nonsense, which the resolution mandates (not to be confused with men dating...)."
It does not make sense of homosexuality for the umpteenth time. Have you viewed it? If so, how does it make sense of it?
"The description even clarifies that viewing said documentary is optional (being a mere recommendation). "
I recommend it because it may not be required to watch to understand what it's about. But the basis of the debate is the documentary. So it would MAKE SENSE, that I advise a HIGH RECOMMENDATION, to view the material. The debate is about specific material. It's not about a flat statement being made such as "homosexuality is nonsense".
It be different if that statement was made flat out and one of my sources was this documentary. The topic is the documentary itself.
"Sure, it apparently makes sense of the breeding fetish (“baby making”) [1], but the claim that only one thing on the planet can make sense is the single worst example of a false dichotomy [2]. That’s like saying 2+2=4, therefore no other combinations of numbers can equal each other; or that a gay hottub orgy has at least four participants so it cannot have more."
Are you saying the documentary doesn't make sense of heterosexuality?
The remainder of what you said, I see nothing stating that this documentary made sense of homosexuality.
You really mistook this debate being about the subject homosexuality being non-sense where the precursor starts at the documentary.
Anything else you're bringing just translates to arguing with the documentary and or the makers of it. You have to dissect , analyze the source material established in the title of this debate and explain how there is no disharmony between sexualities that can otherwise be represented as such via physiological, teleological explanations.
nulla. Pro’s case:
Extend. Pro is refusing to indicate any part the documentary which within any context makes homosexuality nonsense. This is as bad as someone denying being gay, and seeking to prove it via spending a lifetime repeatedly convincing authoritative men to send them to the dungeon where they can take part in nothing but gay sex, just to make sure they don’t really enjoy it... and of course then sagging their pants on the outside, possibly to show how sexually available they are to any willing men but definitely to help those yummy uniformed authority figures catch them [1].
“Are you saying the documentary doesn't make sense of heterosexuality?”
While I accept that it likely does make sense of one gross and dangerous hetero kink (a far cry from making sense of heterosexually in general), even that hasn’t been proven. So yes, no argument has been offered that it actually makes sense of yucky hetero sex, which would be the necessary first step building toward a premise that it therefore does not make sense of fun gay sex, which would then still be pretty far from proving the conclusion that it therefore somehow makes either nonsense.
I. Homeosexuality is not nonsense:
Like the metaphorical soap in the shower, pro has chosen to drop this. So like two men docking, double extend!
II. Kritik:
Pro also chose to drop the rejection of his Kritik, which firmly (do I even need to say pun intended anymore? Because it totally is!) leaves the topic of the debate my original interpretation.
To be sporting, since the topic is sense, I’ll give pro a Kritik he can work with: I’ll concede the debate if he’s able to show anywhere that the documentary proved gay sex is not-sensual. Of course this is to further point out how dumb his semantic Kritik is, by pointing to another that could have been made of the topic… Needless to say, gay sex is actually better at engaging the senses than hetero, I mean just consider the pineapple [2]; whereas heteros have a lingering problem with the very idea of engaging the senses with foreplay [3, 4].
…
As a note here due to receiving a complaint from an ace that I have not likewise defended asexuality: My job in this debate is to refute the resolution's claims against homosexuality, either with evidence against and/or pointing to pro’s lack of having met the basic burden of proof to affirm. To my knowledge, homophobes are not attacking the absence of sex (which many of them take pride in failing to engage... but this is really drifting off topic enough already).
Sources:
Not normally a contention, but pro actively chose to to drop the absence of evidence… So yet another extension.
Additionally, there was a request in the comment for an alternative link to the Pornhub Insights data, which can be found via Cosmopolitan [5].
Round 4
"Extend. Pro is refusing to indicate any part the documentary which within any context makes homosexuality nonsense. "
I'm sorry, ALL PARTS of it.
"While I accept that it likely does make sense of one gross and dangerous hetero kink (a far cry from making sense of heterosexually in general), even that hasn’t been proven. So yes, no argument has been offered that it actually makes sense of yucky hetero sex, which would be the necessary first step building toward a premise that it therefore does not make sense of fun gay sex, which would then still be pretty far from proving the conclusion that it therefore somehow makes either nonsense."
Do you want to go view the documentary then come back to this debate?
"I’ll concede the debate if he’s able to show anywhere that the documentary proved gay sex is not-sensual."
Can I do this without your viewing of the documentary?
How would you know?
Are you being disingenuous?
Let me know if you've seen it. Explain what's it about and argue that based on what it demonstrates, it does nothing to make nonsense of homosexuality.
Again if I have not made it clear before, the science of sex appeal deals with explaining sexual attraction via biological, anatomical, physiological, hormonal analysis to the point where it leaves no room to ascertain how homosexuality fits amidst the various analytical data.
nulla. Pro’s case:
“I'm sorry, ALL PARTS of it.”
That would be a great answer to which parts of gay sex are best; but the the question was about the documentary, to which no parts have been shown.
“Do you want to go view the documentary then come back to this debate?”
I’m flattered at the suggestion of us watching a movie together... but I’m just not into straight boys, sorry.
I. Homeosexuality is not nonsense:
So much soap has been dropped in the shower, I don’t even know where to begin...
II. Kritik:
“Can I do this without your viewing of the documentary?”
Of course. You can do anything you want, you just need to believe in yourself… Well, believe in yourself and use evidence; kind of like if I were debating that our lord and savior wasn’t straight, instead of claiming the whole bible says that if you just read between the lines, I’d point to how many kids he didn’t have and his complete immunity to feminine temptations.
“How would you know?”
Oh I actually have watched it. My favorite part is when they dress a bunch of vigorous young men in white t-shirts, have them run on the treadmills to get all sweaty together, then start undressing; I mean network TV couldn’t show what happens next, but we all know… The filmmakers then contrasted it with how silly hetero sex is, by showing straight girls sniffing the discarded clothes afterward, as if trying to guess at what happened (or maybe that’s what straight people think sex is, just sniffing clothes… eww!).
NOTE: This actually happened.
Sources:
No more sources this round but if anyone if anyone wants more comedy, I suggest reading the following article: Kids in the Hall's Scott Thompson Revisits Buddy Cole
“I'm sorry, ALL PARTS of it.”
That would be a great answer to which parts of gay sex are best; but the the question was about the documentary, to which no parts have been shown.
I’m flattered at the suggestion of us watching a movie together... but I’m just not into straight boys, sorry.
So much soap has been dropped in the shower, I don’t even know where to begin...
“Can I do this without your viewing of the documentary?”
Of course. You can do anything you want, you just need to believe in yourself… Well, believe in yourself and use evidence; kind of like if I were debating that our lord and savior wasn’t straight, instead of claiming the whole bible says that if you just read between the lines, I’d point to how many kids he didn’t have and his complete immunity to feminine temptations.
Oh I actually have watched it. My favorite part is when they dress a bunch of vigorous young men in white t-shirts, have them run on the treadmills to get all sweaty together, then start undressing; I mean network TV couldn’t show what happens next, but we all know… The filmmakers then contrasted it with how silly hetero sex is, by showing straight girls sniffing the discarded clothes afterward, as if trying to guess at what happened (or maybe that’s what straight people think sex is, just sniffing clothes… eww!).
NOTE: This actually happened.
No more sources this round but if anyone if anyone wants more comedy, I suggest reading the following article: Kids in the Hall's Scott Thompson Revisits Buddy Cole
The documentary is like one big verse in let's say the world of science or biology. Why? It deals with one context just as a verse does in the bible.
And by comparison to the "particular Bible verse" you would use, which parts of the documentary did you use?
If I ask you have you read a particular Bible verse and you're not giving an answer that I can see, although not confirmed, it's indicative as like you have not.
Now if it appears that I made an accusation, I had no intent in doing so.
However, the debate indeed went no where as we never went in depth in details of the documentary.
This is a formal debate site, to which people are limited to voting based on the competing evidence offered. If only one side offers evidence, then their hands are tied.
Imagine if I were debating about the bible, do you think I'd list passages from it to support my thesis, or would I merely accuse the voters of having not read it?
But the debate was about the documentary. You people are not understanding me. Then have nerve to vote on something you don't understand. You have to accept and understand what a person is communicating. What in the world is this?
"And these are the voters that haven't seen the documentary.
What a fraud."
Even if we had, it would've changed nothing. Your argument just stunk. Accept it and improve!
What do you mean what happen?
The student can only judge how much they've learned, ain't that right?
To be honest, I would too,dismiss something that looks like it goes against what I believe in or support. I can't blame anybody for that.
What happened to "the students are the absolute judges"?
And these are the voters that haven't seen the documentary.
What a fraud.
Thanks for voting!
Bump.
Coffee is indeed a double edged sword.
drank a late night coffee
Thank you for the insanely detailed RFD! It was more than this debate deserved.
Yes the students are the absolute judges. Those that read now and in the future. Let's just acknowledge we have our own classroom of pupils.
For your teachers analogy: You forget they can demonstrate their lesson plan for the potential learning offered. Were we competing teachers, your lesson plan would exclusively be to complain about mine. Whereas mine, used various texts to teach something about the topic.
It's UP TO THE PERSON THAT'S LEARNING TO DECIDE HOW MUCH THEY'VE BEEN EDUCATED. UP TO THE PERSON, NOT EITHER DEBATER TO DECIDE.
I am a student some where, only I can decide, declare, demonstrate how much I've learned, not the teacher .
My responses and comments apply to all. Thanks again for the constant unnecessary counseling on this site. Yes I'll continue to indicate this is a learning stage. I'll continue to do things in my manner, unconventional. Also you should enjoy yourself while learning.
I hope you all enjoyed the debate. It was quite enjoyable to write my half of it.
Seriously, when replying to a specific person, please put their name in the receivers section.
> They'll ask have you watched the documentary. Watch it and maybe we can try this again.
Interestingly, of the two of us, I'm the only one who has mentioned any details from it to imply viewership. But yes, if you ever want a rematch, I'm game for it.
> The science of sex appeal has nothing to do with anybody's fears.
I agree. Hence I argued it was not homophobic, even listing a scene that was outright homoerotic.
> There are those that understand what I'm talking about and they're the ones that say I won because of what they've learned about those dismissing source material.
You did not use any sources in this debate.
> I make those disclaimers due to the rigged voting system as it's based on an echo chamber , not truth.
How is the voting system rigged? While there do exist bad voters as you've mentioned (those who would give you the source point for example), that is them rigging it against its structure. Whereas any decent voter like myself, will vote based on argument strength even if it's against our personal beliefs.
> it's up to each individual to say who won in the debate based on what the debater helped them learn from the debate.
I actually highly agree with your premise on the importance of learning (not so much the conclusion). By this standard, which of us has done more to educate people within this debate?
You don't know every single individual personally that has or will read this so called debate. Remember , there will be those that'll agree with me. They'll ask have you watched the documentary. Watch it and maybe we can try this again. The science of sex appeal has nothing to do with anybody's fears. Just like a study on cigarette smoking has nothing to do with any of that nonsense. It's about education and this debate didn't go anywhere because you were prepared to put up this awesome defense for homosexuality. But the topic was about the documentary. Now continue your disagreement, you're entitled to it.
People that read this aren't just people that agree with you. There are those that understand what I'm talking about and they're the ones that say I won because of what they've learned about those dismissing source material.
I make those disclaimers due to the rigged voting system as it's based on an echo chamber , not truth. Being that this whole thing is about education, the most important thing, it's up to each individual to say who won in the debate based on what the debater helped them learn from the debate.
I thank you kindly.
Please consider the first line of the description: "The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately"
Have you done anything to inform those who view this debate about the documentary? You claim it's implicitly overwhelmingly homophobic, but failed to point people to either it or at least clips from it which might suggest that premise. Again, it was literally not my job to tell you about the documentary, rather it was your job to tell the audience about it to give something of structure value to take away.
Were I to have gone off topic, you would still have the same duty to inform the audience of the intended subject. Instead, you actively allowed my Scott Thompson impersonation to be the only value people took away from this.
"Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes."
It's not a surprise people ignore your "setup." It is so vague and meaningless for deciding outcomes that people assume your just being rhetorical. Plus you seem to have no understanding that the resolution is the thing you must prove as instigator.
It informs me like many other debates that many of you can't cooperate with a debate description and setup.
This debate really tested that. Somebody can't even tell me about a documentary they should of seen first before arguing.
Y'ah mean?
That is what I've learned over and over.
Humor aside, I hope this debate was informative for you about how to structure an argument and leverage evidence.
I ended up rewriting sections which outright crossed the line. While a homophobic topic like this warrants some mockery, I wouldn't want to lower myself to making a bunch of sexual Ad Hominems.
Also I would have gladly engaged with the moved goalpost were it supported with any evidence (my final round stuff about the shirt sniffing, I prepared expecting to use it in R2 against video evidence... Yes, I would have twisted any segment of the video to be as gay as Archie if you just read between the lines).
It came close to one but with PRO's special pleading it balanced itself out
@VOTERS:
I agree with any conduct penalties applied to my case.
If this guy is a cabbage cannon Ragnar is a tactical nuke
At the end of infinite valuable arguments we have several people. These people have lots of ammos to shoot out of the tank. Basically unending.
In the middle is also several people(including me), they stop firing when the tank is severely damaged.
At the other end is this guy. After firing all his ammos he starts shoot with cabbages that are supposed to be his dinner tonight, and when he runs out of cabbages, he claws around out of the tank and tries to take the entire military force by fistfight, despite that it probably works not.
Accurate
He is the type of guy that NEVER concedes, even if it means to write absolute nonsense. Anything but concession.
Frankly, I'm pretty sure Mall's only strategy is to avoid giving actual arguments by pretending the resolution doesn't mean what his opponent thinks it means
I have yet to see PRO actually give an argument.
Here's a link to a snippet of the same data:
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/videos/a21993/gay-porn-stats-by-state/
(And yes, I'll try to remember to include it next round for anyone in need of an alternative link).
I am afraid to click the pornhub link. Seriously, is there no other statistics that could be used?
How tf is PRO supposed to win? How does a documentary make every single case of homosexuality nonsense?q
As a reminder, your argument is due early tomorrow.
This is pretty hilarious.
Without a doubt one of the deepest and most thought-provoking intellectual discussions on the platform thus far.
A pornhub citation... and man look at that P2! "Hot man on man sex continues!"
Hall of Fame worthy indeed. >insert lenny face<
If there are lesbiens in the audience (and not in the joking way that I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body), I will happily dedicate one of the rounds to women instead of men.
My opponent should definitely use that as a point.
Sometime's it's hard to see why traits may have been selected for during the formative period of human evolution. This can be even more difficult when the traits are psychological adaptations. The underlying issue is whether homosexuality has some objective function or is a mental disorder. There have been some imaginative proposed hypotheses for homosexuality. Though, I'm wondering whether the classification as to function or disorder is relevant in any policy making because I don't think it's something that can be changed.
A suggestion: Don't put the first-round argument in the descriptions. Put them in the first round argument slot.
Called it. Dopamine time!
Um, if pigs have sec for pleasure, why not humans?
If you guessed it's heading in a homoerotic direction, you would be correct.
If PRO had titled the resolution something less exploitable maybe there would be a decent argument on both sides... But I think I know where this is headed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmswmbosYo