Instigator / Pro
3
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#4275
THE Truth about homosexuality in prisons.
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 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Mall
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1522
rating
14
debates
28.57%
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.
This is not necessarily a debate but it could be controversial.
If you're not homosexual, you will not engage in such behaviors as a resort to sexual satisfaction while incarcerated. That is the truth. That is my position.
I will elaborate the topic further in round 1 but if you do have questions on the topic, please come forward and I will clarify.
Also be prepared to deal with empirical logic and not hearsay.
Round 1
The truth about homosexuality in prisons is the truth about homosexuality.
Sexually attracted same sex individuals are attracted and or engaged in same sex activity.
If you're engaging in same sex activity in prison, it's homosexual activity. Those that are saying that's it's not about an interest in sex but in power and that there's a difference between the sex in prison and outside is a ruse.
It is a pretense or front and that is the stone cold truth about it.
I don't have to go to prison to inexplicably get an interest in the same sex physically. If I have a true interest possibly dormant, it can be fulfilled outside of prison.
If there is something about prison, the isolation, the familiarity, getting accustomed, institutionalized or "groomed"that awakens the desire, well there you have it.
I've been a homosexual or bisexual with the desire all along.
Just coming to terms with it doesn't mean I'm not that. So therefore I am that which would explain why I seek it particularly being in a situation where all my options are "homo"-geneous.
The claim for this debate is as follows in case it wasn't clear:
If you're not homosexual, you will not engage in such behaviors as a resort to sexual satisfaction while incarcerated.
Let's begin with definitions:
"Such" in this case isn't directly defined. So, let's begin by defining it. The sentence says "you will not engage in such behaviors as a resort to sexual satisfaction". This must mean that the "such behaviors" is referring to a behavior which can be done as a resort to sexual satisfaction. In other words, it can be things like masturbation, sexual intercourse, or other such sexual activities. For rewriting the claim to be more clear, we get:
If you're not homosexual, you will not engage in sexual behaviors as a resort to sexual satisfaction while incarcerated.
If pro has any problems with this amended definition of the claim (to make it more clear what "such" is referring to) please say so in your next response or it will be assumed that you accept this amended definition as what you meant.
Next, for arguments:
The claim places the burden of proof on pro, which must provide evidence for the claim that if you are not homosexual, you will not engage in such behaviors as a resort to sexual satisfaction while incarcerated. The argument that pro gives doesn't cite any evidence for it's claims, thus it has not fulfilled the burden of proof. Without proof, there is no argument. If pro fails to provide any proof and doesn't fulfill the burden of proof, I automatically win the debate as they cannot defend their points.
Round 2
"For rewriting the claim to be more clear, we get:
If you're not homosexual, you will not engage in sexual behaviors as a resort to sexual satisfaction while incarcerated.
If pro has any problems with this amended definition of the claim (to make it more clear what "such" is referring to) please say so in your next response or it will be assumed that you accept this amended definition as what you meant."
By removing"such " and the way it's rephrased appears to be too broad. To say "you will not engage in sexual behaviors is broadening to no sexual activity at all. If the person is not homosexual but heterosexual, they can still elect to engage in what's called conjugal visits. So I said it the way I did because I'm specifically referring to homosexual behaviors that are sexual.
If this wasn't clear as water before, let it be now to drink.
We're going to leave that just how it is. For anything else, don't hesitate to just ask directly "what do you mean by this ?" because I won't stop at nothing to ask you .
"The claim places the burden of proof on pro, which must provide evidence for the claim that if you are not homosexual, you will not engage in such behaviors as a resort to sexual satisfaction while incarcerated. The argument that pro gives doesn't cite any evidence for it's claims, thus it has not fulfilled the burden of proof. Without proof, there is no argument. If pro fails to provide any proof and doesn't fulfill the burden of proof, I automatically win the debate as they cannot defend their points. "
Oh this is too easy. I don't believe you're the type to answer questions in a debate for some reason.
Do you believe that heterosexuals which are people that only desire and are only attracted to engage in sexual activity of their own volition with the opposite sex desire to engage of their own volition in homosexual sex with the same sex?
It's like I have a half full glass, but somebody doesn't believe or needs proof that my half empty glass is half full like I say.
Like I think we know what words mean so we follow the consistency of the definitions and what they mean in practicality for us.
If you don't believe it, why are you asking for evidence for something you do believe which is the opposite of what you don't?
It's like asking to prove the sun is hot. This is something you can know, experience for yourself.
So answer those questions and if you answer "yes" to one of those questions, you'll learn the difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality in this debate.
Forfeited
Round 3
As the expression goes in one of the religious debate YouTube communities, they often say "mouth stopped".
I'm not one to argue over or argue back in forth on definitions.
We know what it means to be homosexual and heterosexual I'm sure.
So what is there to prove what we know?
Google dictionary: "sexually or romantically attracted exclusively to people of one's own sex or gender."
If a man exclusively or only is attracted sexually to another man, what does that mean?
He only has interest in something sexually related to another man. He only has a sexual interest in another man . He only has influence, an effect or cause to take a sexual venture with another man.
So when somebody asks prove or asks how do you know homosexuals do this, it begs the question, ok do we know what a homosexual is ?
We either know or else consider yourself ill prepared for this debate. So it's a fallacious idea that some have that when incarcerated, heterosexual men that have no cause to be sexually active with men, will be. It's error when we know what these sexualities are in their derivation.
I heard it said that it's not about the sex but about the power. One prisoner has to submit to the other including sexually.
What cause/interest would a heterosexual inmate have sexually being involved with their cell mate , presumably, expectedly another male?
If they have cause to be willing to be involved, their sexuality is questioned because now it changes what it means to be heterosexual. Instead of conflating the term, just come clean with what you truly are which should be no elephant in the room.
Forfeited
Round 4
Case closed. That didn't take much.
Forfeited
Oops, I accidentally posted my argument as a comment. Please ignore that.
The claim for this debate is as follows in case it wasn't clear:
If you're not homosexual, you will not engage in such behaviors as a resort to sexual satisfaction while incarcerated.
Let's begin with definitions:
"Such" in this case isn't directly defined. So, let's begin by defining it. The sentence says "you will not engage in such behaviors as a resort to sexual satisfaction". This must mean that the "such behaviors" is referring to a behavior which can be done as a resort to sexual satisfaction. In other words, it can be things like masturbation, sexual intercourse, or other such sexual activities. For rewriting the claim to be more clear, we get:
If you're not homosexual, you will not engage in sexual behaviors as a resort to sexual satisfaction while incarcerated.
If pro has any problems with this amended definition of the claim (to make it more clear what "such" is referring to) please say so in your next response or it will be assumed that you accept this amended definition as what you meant.
Next, for arguments:
The claim places the burden of proof on pro, which must provide evidence for the claim that if you are not homosexual, you will not engage in such behaviors as a resort to sexual satisfaction while incarcerated. The argument that pro gives doesn't cite any evidence for it's claims, thus it has not fulfilled the burden of proof. Without proof, there is no argument. If pro fails to provide any proof and doesn't fulfill the burden of proof, I automatically win the debate as they cannot defend their points.
I was once "scared-straight":
https://youtu.be/aSG-xyAJ-F4?t=420
The con side is opposite to the truth or if you're more comfortable with the phrasing " opposite to what the topic statement is conveying as the truth of homosexuality in prisons " , cool. It's the opposite of what my position is which is briefly stated in the description.
Im interested in this debate..
But is cons position is the opposite?
Even if you're not homosexual, you can engage in such behaviors as a resort to sexual satisfaction while incarcerated. That is the truth.
Also, i'm not sure the title match's up all the way with your claim