Instigator / Pro
0
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#4281
Here's why gays in their lifestyle don't make sense.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
hey-yo
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
2
1493
rating
25
debates
60.0%
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.
I intend to show how it doesn't make sense in terms of the sexual attraction leading to anal sexual activity.
If you need to understand something prior to participating in the discussion, let it be known.
Round 1
I'm looking to make this point in effort to help everyone today who has not looked at homosexuality thoroughly in detail, function and end game.
I think society's view only goes as far as "love". A man can love and marry a man just as he can a woman, so no problem, no difference.
That is according to society. In this topic the focus is on gays which is male sexually attracted to a male.
Here's why gays in their lifestyle don't make sense. I believe I tried to have a debate like this before but it appeared that folks were making excuses over not watching a documentary.
Don't be scared of a source that may incriminate your views. You guys cry a lot about sources than work to avoid them.
Anyways the lifestyle of a man engaging in anal sex with another doesn't make sense. The science of sex appeal explores, explains the layers constructing the heterosexual attraction.
A man that desires a man, gets a sexual arousal to have an end game of ejaculating semen into another man doesn't make sense. A man can't impregnate another man .
A man desires to experience this sexual gratification with another man by doing what doesn't make sense.
I project the number one rebuttal the opposing side will have is a gay man's goal is not to impregnate another man. They just desire sexual gratification with another man. They're doing and fulfilling what their objective is.
But that's still inconsistent and doesn't make sense. Why is the body wired to eject reproductive material in a non reproductive act?
There really is no way to make that make sense. All you can say is "so what". You say "Let us live and be happy".
Well fine, that's about all you can say. It doesn't falsify the topic statement, see.
Thanks for doing this debate and goving 30k word maximum. A bit much but I see no minimum either. Yay.
1. My opponent provides their input on what another is doing. Regardless to what that other person is doing. Actions are performed based on likes and dislikes as well as our inherit desire to accomplish needs(like security).
Sometimes needs contradict our likes/dislikes. Like when we need to sleep but want to play video games or we like to gamble but need to stop because we are broke and in debt to a mob.
If I were to ask my opponent the following questions bellow, my opponent judges and responds to these questions based on what they like.
Would you throw an axe at a target?
Do you eat sphagetti?
Do you perform sexual action x?
With all these (rhetorical) questions we can see how a responses differ between humans. Considering the debate topic, some men may consider anal sex to be performed on them by a woman. Yes heterosexual men have claimed to have this done to them.
There are many diffderent aspects to sex that my opponent did point to, which is based on feeling. We can consider this range of responses to be based more on likes/dislikes instead of needs.
2. When my opponent speaks on this topic they are saying "does not make sense ." This is a negative form of the phrase "make sense" which means reasonable.
Reasonable is defined as being appropriate or fair. Also defined as fair, sensible, having sound jusgement.
But what is judgement?
According to merriam-webster dictionary, judgement refers to forming an opinion or evaluating.
We may suggest that to make sense means to evaluate (in this case) an action to formulate an opinion on it.
3. Opinions are characterised as applying to one's liked/dislikes. considering how people respond to action x, their opinion is to say like/dislike. As in I like or I dislike.
Opinions are also characterised as being subjective.
Subjectivity means each person may come to a different conclusion but neither conclusion will automatically compromise an objective good or bad.
4 conclusion
Therefore the opponent expresses an opinion that does not indicate that an opposing opinion is incorrect. Gay lifestyle may still "make sense" to some. Where as the verbage can be summarised as like or dislike.
Round 2
"Sometimes needs contradict our likes/dislikes. "
Does this mean at times these things don't make sense?
"Like when we need to sleep but want to play video games or we like to gamble but need to stop because we are broke and in debt to a mob. "
Are you saying these things make sense?
"Would you throw an axe at a target? "
I can't say. I don't know. I would have to know myself the point in doing so.
"Do you eat sphagetti? "
Yes
"Do you perform sexual action x? "
Depends on what "X" is .
"With all these (rhetorical) questions we can see how a responses differ between humans. Considering the debate topic, some men may consider anal sex to be performed on them by a woman. Yes heterosexual men have claimed to have this done to them."
Your point is somewhat lost on me. Maybe the questions would of served better requiring answers to make a point off the responses.
The topic is concerning just males to stay on topic.
"There are many diffderent aspects to sex that my opponent did point to, which is based on feeling. "
I specifically referenced anal sex.
I stated the following:
"A man that desires a man, gets a sexual arousal to have an end game of ejaculating semen into another man doesn't make sense."
This topic has a context but you have to be attentive to what's stated in response to it .
"When my opponent speaks on this topic they are saying "does not make sense ." This is a negative form of the phrase "make sense" which means reasonable.
Reasonable is defined as being appropriate or fair. Also defined as fair, sensible, having sound jusgement. "
But what else does "making sense " mean?
I clearly elaborated what I mean when I say , when I say, when I say something doesn't make sense. Again, PLEASE be attentive to the statements I make. Don't come along and add your own interpretations with the help of cherry picked references.
What doesn't make sense is something that is incongruent, inconsistent . I didn't say anything about reasonable.
See how easy strawmans and misrepresentations occur.
"Therefore the opponent expresses an opinion that does not indicate that an opposing opinion is incorrect. Gay lifestyle may still "make sense" to some. Where as the verbage can be summarised as like or dislike. "
This is not my position. This is a misrepresentation of my position. I didn't make an opinion of anything.
This is what you are to address and it looks like you evaded it.
These questions aren't rhetorical. I repeat, these questions aren't rhetorical and require answers from you in order to have a chance to refute anything. That's because the answers will either build consistency where its lacking or add to the inconsistency.
"Why is the body wired to eject reproductive material in a non reproductive act?"
That's from the first round, you missed it and if you understood the context laid out in the first round, follow up with answering that question.
See if a man is attracted to engage in anal sex with another man in aim to eject reproductive bodily fluid in a non reproductive act, is that consistent or contradictory?
Don't evade this time with likes, dislikes, tastes and opinions. Please answer the questions to validate your position.
I will have to ask my opponent to type normal, where italics are used for quotes and normal (non italic, non-underline, non-bold) font is their own words. Your response is inconsistent.
1. My opponent asks two questions that relates to their position. I do not need to answer the questions. They serve no purpose in my position and do not serve my opponents side for 2 reasons.
A ) My opponent has burden of proof in explaining why gay lifestyle does not make sense. This means, they have to show evidence for an objective position. Why? This is a debate. If they argue for a subjective opinion and they agree that the opinion is subjective, that will identify their position can be false or invalid for some people.
If their position makes sense to someone then, it by default makes sense.
B.) My position, although unorthodox or unusual, is not to argue for an objective truth. I am pushing you, the audience, to recognize the debate topic as subjective and my opponent lacks evidence for their objective position.
Strawman? No. Their position is inherently objective because their opening position and the debate title does not include "sometimes." Their position is very clear, to be applied to everyone which is "all the time."
Thus far, they have asserted their opinion and why they believe it. They have not conveyed sufficient evidence why others should believe it.
2. When we look at their question:
"Why is the body wired to eject reproductive material in a non reproductive act?"
We can include anal sex between men, anal sex with heterosexual couples, masturbation, and oral sex. Why do men regardless to sexual attraction perform acts that eject reproductive material in non productive ways?
If this question is the basis for my opponent's position, then should we claim heterosexual men lifestyles do not make sense?
What "I like" may include some of these acts as well. perhaps some in my audience (regardless to male/female) may like various acts that do not generate procreation. This would include sex itself, when using contraceptives.
Does my opponent use contraceptives? Consider that rhetorical because we do not need to include personal tastes in this discussion. However if they do, dare they to say their actions make no sense? This too is rhetorical, but considers intilectual integrity in my opponent's position.
Perhaps we may ask a question that is not rhetorical. Opponent! Does your concern for sexual material ejected during non reproductive means only apply to gay sex, and if yes why?
Your point is somewhat lost on me. Maybe the questions would of served better requiring answers to make a point off the responses.
3. My point is to argue that the debate topic is subjective because this would exclude an objective truth. Your position is inherently objective.
In other words, I am saying all I have to do is proove your statement is subjective.
The topic is concerning just males...
4. You asked about ejeculation that does not generate procreation & anal sex. This includes situations where men may do the same thing by themselves or with a woman.
5. I specifically referenced anal sex.
"A man that desires a man, gets a sexual arousal to have an end game of ejaculating semen into another man doesn't make sense."
Yes. An example to your claim that "gay lifestyle does not make sense." There are different sex related actions that are included in "gay lifestyle" that can be seen in non "gay lifestyles."
If an act like anal sex does not make sense for a "gay lifestyle," because of x then we should apply the same logic to "heterosexual life style."
However, if we see that anal sex on a man does occur in heterosexual relationships, we should suspect the act is independent from procreaction. Which compromises your premise and therefore your conclusion.
6.
I clearly elaborated what I mean when I say , when I say, when I say something doesn't make sense. Again, PLEASE be attentive to the statements I make. Don't come along and add your own interpretations with the help of cherry picked references.
No. You did not provide any definitions. I provided word definitions from a dictionary so everyone can have the same understanding. No cherry picking allowed.
What doesn't make sense is something that is incongruent, inconsistent . I didn't say anything about reasonable
You do not have to. "To make sense" is to be reasonable. We can be reasonable by being consistent. Like consistent in an argument.
7. See how easy strawmans and misrepresentations occur.
This is my arguement, not yours. I never said it was your arguement.
"Therefore the opponent expresses an opinion that does not indicate that an opposing opinion is incorrect. Gay lifestyle may still "make sense" to some. Where as the verbage can be summarised as like or dislike. "
The conclusion means your position is subjective and can not prove that an opposing subjective opinion, like "gay life style makes sense" is false because you are explaining your interpretation to said life style which explains your subjective opinion.
Round 3
"I will have to ask my opponent to type normal, where italics are used for quotes and normal (non italic, non-underline, non-bold) font is their own words. Your response is inconsistent. "
Ok comrade whatever you think will help you. Let's see what you think is consistent to you. I'm going to try to help you get an understanding.
" I do not need to answer the questions. "
Then you stand refuted. When you don't answer questions, you're evading possible refutation. Being that you're electing to not answer, this is conceding.
"A ) My opponent has burden of proof in explaining why gay lifestyle does not make sense. This means, they have to show evidence for an objective position."
You want proof but refuse to answer the questions. It's just like saying you want evidence for who stole something from you. I ask will you look behind you.
You say "no, I want evidence". If you can just take the defensive wall down and cooperate, the answer will be right there, the person and their confession.
"If their position makes sense to someone then, it by default makes sense. "
You can make this a lot easier on yourself if you just answer the question(s) I asked. This doesn't have to be complicated. I'm trying to make it simple as possible. We make it simple and there'd be no controversy. It may turn out that some topics are not controversial as they appear. I understand that's what you're looking for but my position is so straightforward, there's nothing to really argue over.
"Thus far, they have asserted their opinion and why they believe it. They have not conveyed sufficient evidence why others should believe it. "
An opinion in a question. How do I ask an opinion?
"2. When we look at their question:
"Why is the body wired to eject reproductive material in a non reproductive act?"
We can include anal sex between men, anal sex with heterosexual couples, masturbation, and oral sex."
We can do that when we isolate this question from the context of the debate and topic.
The topic is about gay people. My position is about gay folks. You do know who gay people are as I indicated from the first round.
"In this topic the focus is on gays which is male sexually attracted to a male."
Details, details, details, very crucial.
"Here's why gays in their lifestyle don't make sense."
Another detail. What or which lifestyle,see?
WHAT OR WHICH?
See if you follow all the details, I'm not going all over the place just flat out talking about anything and everything.
"Anyways the lifestyle of a man engaging in anal sex with another doesn't make sense."
Hence I ask the question" Why is the body wired to eject reproductive material in a non reproductive act?"
Why can't you follow my position in context? Is it just too straightforward so therefore it must be jumbled up and complicated by you?
Seriously, let us just reason and communicate with reading comprehension. Take everything I say line upon line and counter it.
"If this question is the basis for my opponent's position, then should we claim heterosexual men lifestyles do not make sense? "
See this is where you fool yourself into thinking you have something but you've really just moved the goalpost. Like I just explained about context, you change the context, you can make anything fit your narrative anyway you want in attempt to make a case.
I kindly suggest you to now answer the question(s) in context of this topic or concede.
"However if they do, dare they to say their actions make no sense? This too is rhetorical, but considers intilectual integrity in my opponent's position. "
Sure I can say more things that don't make sense. This is just a red herring of yours taking the light off the topic. In this topic, in the context of my position I'm focusing specifically on the gay lifestyle I specified. Your counterpoint is in the manner of " Well what about them, what about these other acts?" Like all these other things exist so now all of it somehow makes sense somehow apparently according to you. Is this the point of your rhetorical questions? What is the point? I can see why they don't require answers really. It eliminates the inevitable outcome of destroying your position.
"Does your concern for sexual material ejected during non reproductive means only apply to gay sex, and if yes why? "
No . But that isn't the topic. You're moving the goalpost taking the light of the niche of the topic saying "Well what about these other acts?". You act like I stated in my position that all heterosexuality makes complete sense and all homosexuality doesn't. If I would of said that, you'd have something but your building straws whether you recognize it or not.
This is not heterosexuality versus homosexuality. I specified a particular act in a lifestyle that doesn't make sense or is not consistent. It's either true or false , it either is or isn't. It's time you stop evading that with the simple answer of yes or no to a question.
My initial question.
"Why is the body wired to eject reproductive material in a non reproductive act?"
This may be more a simple question requiring a yes or no.
Is it consistent for the body to be wired to eject reproductive material in a non reproductive act?
If it's consistent,it be in an agreement, compatible, non-contradicting, non-opposing integration.
Please just face up to this and be done man.
" My point is to argue that the debate topic is subjective because this would exclude an objective truth. Your position is inherently objective. "
See this is why I ask questions. The questions give an opportunity to challenge and confirm objectivity. The topic is explained by the context of the debate. They're not separated. One explains the other. So the topic in the frame of this context is whatever the context is which is objective or fact, not opinion. But you're initial response is a rejection to answer my questions. Answering the questions would demonstrate the facts. Your answer will either be true or false.
"You asked about ejeculation that does not generate procreation & anal sex. This includes situations where men may do the same thing by themselves or with a woman. "
You're saying it includes it. That's the problem. You're presupposing these things which is how strawmans get built. Don't go beyond the words of what a person communicates. You can ask am I including that . That would be a non fallacious way of going about it unless you stand to be accused of putting words in my mouth.
The topic is on the gay lifestyle as described. The topic is on the gay lifestyle as described. The topic is on the gay lifestyle as described.
"Yes. An example to your claim that "gay lifestyle does not make sense." There are different sex related actions that are included in "gay lifestyle" that can be seen in non "gay lifestyles."
This is my point. NEVERMIND these different sex related actions. You have to stick to the exact details of my position. It's error to argue a point to a debate that I never made.
If an act like anal sex does not make sense for a "gay lifestyle," because of x then we should apply the same logic to "heterosexual life style."
Moving the goalpost. Debate has nothing to do with heterosexuality. Nor would looking at anything else automatically change what the point of discussion is.
"However, if we see that anal sex on a man does occur in heterosexual relationships, we should suspect the act is independent from procreaction. Which compromises your premise and therefore your conclusion. "
It does not.
"No. You did not provide any definitions. I provided word definitions from a dictionary so everyone can have the same understanding. No cherry picking allowed. "
This doesn't give you entitlement to presuppose and add to my position. You're getting this all sloppy. Also what do definitions do? They explain things. Therefore I explained my position in detail.
Don't be formulaic but utilize reading comprehension to make appropriate rebuttals, not irrelevant ones.
"You do not have to. "To make sense" is to be reasonable. We can be reasonable by being consistent. Like consistent in an argument. "
My point exactly again. From your side it's not about what I specifically say or don't say because you just add your words to my mouth anyway. Kudos for calling yourself out on the error.
"This is my arguement, not yours. I never said it was your arguement. "
Well then don't argue something that has nothing to do with me like an imbecile. That's the point in debating against somebody. You're arguing exactly to what they said not coming along conjuring up other things.
So here's what, come back, COME BACK to this topic in context. Deal only in the points that I've stated. I never stated anything about what sense does heterosexuality make so don't bring it up. I shouldn't have to point this out. Something so straightforward as this, come on .
Do us a favor, make it easy, answer this question.
Is it consistent for the body to be wired to eject reproductive material in a non reproductive act?
If you say yes, it's intellectual dishonesty.
" I do not need to answer the questions. "
0.
Then you stand refuted. When you don't answer questions, you're evading possible refutation. Being that you're electing to not answer, this is conceding.
I concede; for I am unable to contend with the question(s) validity that sits in your mind. The question(s) is important to you.
"A ). When you don't answer questions, you're evading possible refutation.
You want proof but refuse to answer the questions. It's just like saying you want evidence for who stole something from you. I ask will you look behind you.
You say "no, I want evidence". If you can just take the defensive wall down and cooperate, the answer will be right there, the person and their confession.
Mall, you had a conclusion to argue for before I accepted this debate. You have your own premises that are not dependent on how I think as it existed before we met. My answer does not change your conclusion. Even if I am to say no, you have already suggested that the answer should be yes.
The evidence I ask for is to help us understand why you think the answer should be yes and why should we hold it as an objective truth that affects us all.
You use an analogy about me being pickpocketed (I imagined pickpocket because someone is behind me) to demonstrate that you are trying to show me the truth, if only I look behind me.
There are two errors here. 1. Just tell me to check my pockets. My wallet's missing? My phone is missing? This is evidence that does not rely on looking away from you.
You are the person making your claim, so don't divert our gaze like a pickpocketer to achieve an end goal. Use the evidence that is infront of us all.
2. I could see how an unanswered question delivering the imagery for preventing refuting if the question demonstrates error in my position. You seemed to have answered all but 1 of my questions. Did those answers allow further examination into why your position could be in error or invalid? No.
I am saying your question does not affect the subjectivity to the conclusion. Even if I were to say yes, this would not change how gay life style could make sense to me.
How's that? Simple. Ejaculation is not dependent on procreation.
An erection starts in your brain. Something you saw, felt, smelled, heard, or thought makes your nerves send chemical messages to the blood vessels in your penis.
When you're aroused, tubes called the vas deferens squeeze sperm from the testes toward the back of the urethra. The seminal vesicles also release fluid there.
The urethra senses the sperm and fluid mixture. Then, at the height of sexual excitement, it sends signals to your spinal cord, which in turn sends signals to the muscles at the base of your penis. These contract powerfully and quickly, every 0.8 seconds. This forces the semen out of the penis as you climax.
See? Your sexual arousal and climax starts in the brain, with your subjective experiences. Which means some may find gay lifestyle to be reasonable and make sense. Mall does not have to find it reasonable in order for someone else to.
"2. We can do that when we isolate this question from the context of the debate and topic.
Although the topic is specific about gay lifestyle, you are examining or at least using a generalized condition to examine a specific group in our population.
I find it reasonable to examine the condition itself and how it affects all men because it is not subject to change for gay men. Now I can put my feet in someone else's shoe and relate.
"If this question is the basis for my opponent's position, then should we claim heterosexual men lifestyles do not make sense?
Examining how all our bodies respond to stimuli can give better example to how we might be "wired" to do x. Let x be anger, sexual interest, or what ever - we will be able to identify how all our bodies respond to subjective experiences. We can then apply the bigger picture to a select group, like gay men, to see the same result. Ejecting sexual material is dependent on subjective experience, not procreation.
3. This is just a red herring of yours taking the light off the topic. In this topic, in the context of my position I'm focusing specifically on the gay lifestyle I specified. Your counterpoint is in the manner of " Well what about them, what about these other acts?"
No I am doing what you suggested. Don't be afraid you said. I am not afraid as to how the conversation may look. If you think a heterosexual man can make sense while having anal sex (and ejecting sexual materials in said anal) then it stands to reason a gay man can as well. The only difference between the two is who they be banging. The end result, contradicting procreation, is the same..
No . But that isn't the topic.
Well yes that is the topic. What makes sense is the topic. Again, your question involves procreation. All men can violate or contradict procreation. Why? Because their experience is subjective just as their reasoning is subjective.
4. "Why is the body wired to eject reproductive material in a non reproductive act?"
This may be more a simple question requiring a yes or no.
Is it consistent for the body to be wired to eject reproductive material in a non reproductive act?
Now I am at a crossroads. Do I answer for the sake of allowing my opponent to continue their side of the debate or reinforce my position?
Mall did change his writing style upon request. There has not appeared to be malice behind intent. Hm...he did call me imbicle. But is that his entire arguement?
Eh. Request for a request, favor for a favor.
I find it consistent for the male body to eject reproductive material in a non reproductive way because the male body is not wired to ejaculate for procreation ONLY. The body and brain have subjective responses to subjective simuli.
5. Mall, you do not seem to understand that I am not restricted to bantering your points. Which at this point does not convey the debate topic as true.
...oh yea thats right. Objectively true.
Round 4
"I concede; for I am unable to contend with the question(s) validity that sits in your mind. The question(s) is important to you."
Do you choose to not answer the question "Is it consistent for the body to be wired to eject reproductive material in a non reproductive act?" because the answer you give truthfully will concede your position to mine?
So you figure you save yourself the trouble instead of going there, you posit these excuses to not answer the questions but concede anyway.
Just like that character in the movie Menace to Society that played the detective, he said "now you see now.....now you know you done f*ck up right, you know it don't you?"
It's really case closed right here. It's game over. You've got to know what you're getting into it.
Now I can respond to the other things you've said perhaps just for edification purposes but it's a wrap right here.
"Although the topic is specific about gay lifestyle, you are examining or at least using a generalized condition to examine a specific group in our population. "
The topic specifies the sexual activity between two males in what's called a gay lifestyle. It's not in general of the gay lifestyle. Here's where you demonstrate how attentive you are to details.
From the first round I stated "Anyways the lifestyle of a man engaging in anal sex with another doesn't make sense. "
Why ? Doing a non- reproductive act specifically, specifically now, we're not incorporating everything else that's related to the gay lifestyle. I went after something specific and direct according to what is involved in the lifestyle performed by those referred to as gay. This is why I continue to point out context and details.
I think we pick out, become selective of words in a topic like this . Every detail of every word not just looking on the surface has to be the focus. We get tunnel vision and lose the integrity of another's position.
There's a reason why the question is so elaborate in specification clearly specifying two opposing parts.
A non reproductive act using reproductive elements or reproductive substance is opposing. They're opposite, different, not the same, not consistent. Which not being consistent is another way of saying as the topic statement puts it "not making sense".
Now you've evading this until now where you conceded. You're probably not the only one. Many people probably don't want to bother with that. But look, just because that part is true, this isn't a debate to declare something wrong or invalid.
People may feel that way. Well if I'm saying this, it must be in effort to show that this whole thing is wrong and others will not be on board with that. No that's not the aim of this.
The point of this topic is not that. This has nothing to do with calling out gay sex as wrong or going against folks so don't dread .
I'm just zeroing in on a particular act where we can see empirically, honestly, straightforwardly when comparing two things that don't go together. Two things that don't match, that aren't the same so they don't fit , that are not compatible. All that other stuff, you can have it for another debate.
I notice many things you're saying is complicating the issue or topic. This is how brainwashing and confusion can be effective and accomplished.
A thing to notice about my questions, they're cut and dry basic and simple . One question focuses on two things as they are without throwing all these different layers, aspects and facets on them.
A non reproductive act that utilizes, not separate but UTILIZES reproductive material. I understand some people think the question may insult their intelligence. I say this because really, the answer is in the question. The question is asking about consistency in obviously expressed inconsistent entities.
A comedian by the name of Bruce Bruce had a punch line joke. It went like this.
"I know y'all open 24 hours but what time y'all open in the morning?"
Yes, the answer was in the question. This is children elementary intelligence. We as adults, those of us that are, come along add on this complexity with biological data, research and whatnot.
Just look at what the body empirically does and then step back and see what an individual does or decides in their thinking in comparison with the body.
"If you think a heterosexual man can make sense while having anal sex (and ejecting sexual materials in said anal) then it stands to reason a gay man can as well. "
The problem is , you haven't quoted where I said this in my position. This is what I'm saying about being on topic. You wouldn't say "If you think" if you had an exact quote. Go with what my actual position says.
"I find it consistent for the male body to eject reproductive material in a non reproductive way because the male body is not wired to ejaculate for procreation ONLY. The body and brain have subjective responses to subjective simuli. "
You find it consistent. You do but are the two words reproductive and non reproductive consistent with each other?
If the answer is yes, then that's a lie or at least error. These two things are total opposite.
You already conceded, now you want to backpedal by putting your own spin on it.
Let's walk through your response here . You say the body is not wired only for reproduction. NOT ONLY doesn't mean either or. If it was either or , then you have a case. Then that would mean the reproductive material turns off and the alternate functions are wired to turn on. So you still have nothing just as tried with putting the light on heterosexuality which is the same difference.
I can take that topic and change it to here's what doesn't make sense about the straight lifestyle. I'd use the same facts .
But getting back on topic, the body doesn't turn off the ejected reproductive fluid. So by it coming as setup to do, that factor is always a part of the equation each time keeping an inconsistent factor in there.
You're trying but you're not quite hitting the mark.
Yes sex is not for one thing or another. Just like with food. Us consuming food doesn't work that way either. It's the same way .
There's always a nutrition factor and I can make a separate topic on what doesn't make sense about gluttony lifestyle.
According to our bodies, not what you think, not what I think, but according to how our bodies work, looking at a man that is attracted to engage in a non reproductive act with another man to discharge reproductive fluid is inconsistent. It's an oxymoron.
Kind of like peaceful war. Making quiet bangs and silent noise is paradoxical. It maybe language to poetry of sorts. Aside from that , you can't make sense of it.
Focus on the details...
1. I am still waiting on why Mall's position should be considered objective rather subjective.
This has been the core issue I addressed from the start. Although I have conceded on a question's validity, there is no need to concede on the debate because the subjective part has not been addressed.
Likewise, Mall has stopped disputing the provided definition on "make sense," from merriam-webster dictionary but has continued to dispute my position. This works both ways.
In regards to the question it self, we can see how my answer did not affect Mall's response to it. Even if I had said no, Mall's goal has been the same from the start. To consider only the end game. Missing a more important aspect to his own words. Bellow is a list of statements with underlined words being the focus and bold being words missed:
A man that desires a man, gets a sexual arousal to have an end game of ejaculating semen into another man doesn't make sense. A man can't impregnate another man .
I intend to show how it doesn't make sense in terms of the sexual attraction leading to anal sexual activity.
A man desires to experience this sexual gratification with another man by doing what doesn't make sense.
Our sexual arousal and climax starts in the brain, with our subjective experiences. Our likes and dislikes. We look at and consider performing sexual acts based on our likes and dislikes.
As I said in round 1, each person may come to a different conclusion but neither conclusion will automatically compromise the other.
the debate topic is subjective and my opponent lacks evidence for their objective position.
2.
According to our bodies, looking at a man that is attracted to engage in a non reproductive act with another man to discharge reproductive fluid is inconsistent.
Why are we disconnecting how we think when the way we think ( or use our brain) is connected to body mechanics? our senses (i e. Feel) allow our brains to register and respond to stimuli, like hormones, which connect our brains to physical acts like sex.
Why should a person come to the same conclusion you are? (Separate question from previous).
3.
A non reproductive act that utilizes, not separate but UTILIZES reproductive material.
How does a non reproductive act utilize reproductive material? Considering reproductive material is utilized or used during reproductive acts - sperm goes in, conception, etc.
I mean yes, the body ejects the material but in what way are we to say it is being used if the substance is not used or does nothing?
Just look at what the body empirically does and then step back and see what an individual does or decides in their thinking in comparison with the body.
I agree with this sentiment. Look at what the body and mind does: respond to subjective stimuli. An individual decides in their thinking
4.
The problem is, you haven't quoted where I said this is my position.
Im not quoting you. Im not saying it is your position. I already said that these were rhetorical to bridge the gap for the audience and put ourselves in someone else's shoes. Do I succeed? I do not know but its ok if I did not.
You find it consistent. You do but are the two words reproductive and non reproductive consistent with each other?
The words do not have to be consistent with each other or compatible in order for the act itself to be reasonable. If you think it does, please explain why and why such a thing is objective.
Now. what I said is that the act is consistent with material because both the act and material being ejected is dependent on the subjective stimuli. Which includes how we think because that is the basis for what we like/dislike.
The bold highlights content I talked about since round 1. There is no back pedaling. I have been reinforcing the same message. Everything you have talked about is based on our likes/dislikes which are subjective.
Even in previous round where I added:
Ejaculation is not dependent on procreation.
An erection starts in your brain. Something you saw, felt, smelled, heard, or thought makes your nerves send chemical messages to the blood vessels in your penis.
When you're aroused, tubes called the vas deferens squeeze sperm from the testes toward the back of the urethra. The seminal vesicles also release fluid there....
See? Your sexual arousal and climax starts in the brain, with your subjective experiences. Which means some may find gay lifestyle to be reasonable and make sense. Mall does not have to find it reasonable in order for someone else to.
If an experience starting in our brain then it will be dependent on our subjective nature.
We do not need to turn anything off or on because
A. We cant
B both the act and ejaculation are subject to subjective stimuli.
In other words. If we look at penis to vagina sex (a reproductive act) the male body does not eject reproductive material because of the vagina. The body does not ejaculate because the act is reproductive in nature. Instead, the stimuli is likable and therefore our bodies react to it.
Round 5
"Likewise, Mall has stopped disputing the provided definition on "make sense," from merriam-webster dictionary but has continued to dispute my position. This works both ways. "
I believe you have inspired me to create a new topic. Isn't logical to debate over definitions or to just understand what a person means using a word.
That's all really for that response.
"In regards to the question it self, we can see how my answer did not affect Mall's response to it. Even if I had said no, Mall's goal has been the same from the start."
You act like your answer was guaranteed to be infallible. Just because you can't refute my response to your answer so called , doesn't mean you stand correct in your answer. It means you have to do a better job and not give up. This is why many of you can't play ball with the questions and answers like a lawyer and witness in court.
This is probably why none of you have challenged a live debate with the exception of one. You can't handle these things on the spot. You're not ready to answer questions. All you have is a prepared, rehearsed cookie cutter template for these discussions.
Then you argue about subjective versus objective. I don't know if you got the memo but this topic is dealing in facts only. Facts are not subjective other than subjected to reality itself.
The question(s) I ask are asking about a fact or factual answer. It's the same if I were to ask you are a boy and girl the same. Not asking for somebody's opinion but a fact .
"Why are we disconnecting how we think when the way we think ( or use our brain) is connected to body mechanics? our senses (i e. Feel) allow our brains to register and respond to stimuli, like hormones, which connect our brains to physical acts like sex."
I don't know what you mean by "Why are we disconnecting "?
This would of been good to bring up earlier in the debate instead arguing over definitions.
I don't know about us disconnecting but the body is showing something is disconnected or not connected right between the body and brain.
You asking this question is just proving the point about the inconsistency. The brain is signaling the sexual productive organ to prepare for ejaculating. On top of that , the brain of a gay person. Huh? What? What in the world?
"Why should a person come to the same conclusion you are?"
What conclusion? Of these things being inconsistent, is that what you're asking?
If a person is honest and understands what consistent means, you and any person like that would come to the same conclusion. Which the body has already concludes for us. The body has concluded. If you just observe the body, the body communicates all these things. The body communicates a lot of things . Society today at least is not really listening or adherent to it but that's another subject.
Again I don't know exactly what you were asking about. The question kind of just hung out there but hey, we can do a part two to the topic.
"How does a non reproductive act utilize reproductive material? Considering reproductive material is utilized or used during reproductive acts - sperm goes in, conception, etc. "
That's not what I asked. I asked about a non reproductive act . You answered"during reproductive acts".
Notice how you're flipping this up and down and around.
"I mean yes, the body ejects the material but in what way are we to say it is being used if the substance is not used or does nothing? "
In what way? The way of cause and effect I guess would be the best way to answer the question. Are we acting like we can't determine things based on the body's function.
The body's function to perspire during or post exercise is an example of cause and effect.
But a person that has a dehydration or hypohidrosis issue will not sweat during heavy physical exertion. Due to the glands setup to release fluid and do not, there is something not fitting, not compatible or in agreement with something to properly execute this function.
A person that is anorexic which would be a lifestyle or living a life with some sort of eating disorder. The word "disorder" can be synonymous with inconsistent. It's something that is not consistent or in order surrounding how a person eats , responds or reacts to food. We know the body is wired for nutrition but something is inconsistent or off about a person receiving malnutrition .
See it's the same observation when we're discussing sexuality or anything. But I think there is an avoidance to touch this due to social climate. There's an evasion but we can't be apprehensive in being upfront with the setup of the bodily configuration.
"Im not quoting you. Im not saying it is your position. I already said that these were rhetorical to bridge the gap for the audience and put ourselves in someone else's shoes. Do I succeed? I do not know but its ok if I did not. "
I just don't get making points to things I didn't say I'm arguing about. If it's just to make discussion, distinguish it as such. Say you're interjecting something as a side note but not an actual counter argument or rebuttal.
"The words do not have to be consistent with each other or compatible in order for the act itself to be reasonable. If you think it does, please explain why and why such a thing is objective. "
I don't think but I know from what the words mean to tell us what is inconsistent. I don't know if this is just intellectual dishonesty from you or your thinking cap is not on.
It's like I said last round about oxymorons. If you know anything about them, an example is peaceful war. A big small thing or a reproductive entity from a non reproductive source. These things are contradictions. You can't have one without the other.
I'm Catholic but don't practice the religion. I'm yelling quietly. These terms when you know the definitions, are opposite. They oppose, they contradict, they don't fit, they don't agree, they're different, they're inconsistent.
"Now. what I said is that the act is consistent with material because both the act and material being ejected is dependent on the subjective stimuli. "
The question is continued to be begged. It's like you keep missing it and it's real simple. Being that you know this, we know the reproductive capacity is supported by reproductive organs that are signaled by the brain. So why does the male engage with another male that can't accomplish what the brain is signaling the body to do which is to reproduce but it's with another vessel that can't accomplish this?
It's like we're pretending this is not the reality of the situation. Let us not worry about societal repercussions and sensitivity because this is the truth. Unless you and those haven't looked at this intrinsically as laid out in this debate, maybe that is the case .
"We do not need to turn anything off or on because
A. We cant
B both the act and ejaculation are subject to subjective stimuli. "
We don't need to because it's irrelevant. It's not about turning it on and off. I saying how things work. It's not an either this or that situation. The reproductive substance comes with the act so the inconsistent factor is always there anytime the non reproductive act is integrated. That's what you have not and cannot deny and refute that. There's no essence in ejaculating reproductive fluid during gay sex. Two men can't sexually reproduce,duh. But yet a gay man that has a lifestyle of interest to do this is not consistent with the flow to their anatomical function, it doesn't make sense .
"Subjective stimuli", you can say this over and over. It's empty and vague until we know what the stimulation is connected to.
It's connected to a brain that activates a reproductive system in a gay man to use on another man that ........is this like not plain enough?
It's like saying I'm preparing to go to a particular war that is already over. I'm saving my money that I only wish to use for spending and never spend it. Let's say I do spend the money but because I need housing and food, spending all of it on everything else doesn't fly.
"If we look at penis to vagina sex (a reproductive act) the male body does not eject reproductive material because of the vagina. "
This part doesn't make sense and I wish we had more rounds to go in depth but like I said we can do a part two. It's because the stimulation of the vaginal walls contacting the foreskin of the male genitalia, the semen will eject. Remember you emphasize about stimulation.
"The body does not ejaculate because the act is reproductive in nature. Instead, the stimuli is likable and therefore our bodies react to it. "
Whatever this means, it's not really clear.
I'll say this in final thoughts above my stance on the topic. Seriously, go over all my points particularly surrounding observing how and what our bodies do when it comes to sexuality. Sexuality is just one facet. Other things that signal off between the brain and body like hunger, thirst, blinking an eye, all of these functions we can empirically get explanatory communication. When anything is off, inconsistent, out of sort, erratic, anything where one end of a function doesn't match the other, we can witness what the body internally does, does not do to align with everything else externally which misalignment is/can be determined.
Although Mall does well to point out the difference between procreation materials vs. non procreation actions, we miss vital details in how (gay) men are aroused, what stimulates sex organs, and what simulates men to the point of orgasm/ejaculation.
From the start, I said sex as a whole is based on personal likes and dislikes. Which makes the topic example and therefore topic subjective, not objective. For some, like Mall, anal sex does not make sense. While for some, anal sex makes sense. For some gay life style makes sense. For some gay lifestyle does not make sense.
Mall says ejaculating reproductive material during non reproductive acts are inconsistent.
However, as Mall has pointed out, the body does not distinguish between reproductive vs non reproductive. Our bodies do not turn ejaculation off.
Our bodies do not turn ejaculation off because the non reproductive act and reproductive material responds to our subjective desire to perform a given act and subjective response a given act.
What we find reasonable in this topic is not objective. We will not come to the exact same conclusion, nor are we all influenced by a single conclusion. We have come to see this through honest examination that the debate topic is not objective. Therefore gay life style can make sense.
To address my opponent's final statement::
Isn't logical to debate over definitions or to just understand what a person means
Everyone should have a clear understanding to what a person means. This includes that the topic is "gay lifestyle does not make sense because anal sex is inconsistent with reproductive materials involved."
You [hey-yo] act like your answer was guaranteed to be infallible.
No. I acknowledge that you could have provided us with your own answer or reason to your own question since round 1 but did not. Acting as if your description was dependent on my answer, when it was not. We could have gotten more in depth from round 1 with a positive claim.
This site caters to those who are unable to do live debates. For me, I don't have the time. I think its unfair to assume a person's position based on circular reasoning. That's all Ill say on that. The rest will be on topic.
The question(s) I ask are asking about a fact or factual answer. It's the same if I were to ask you are a boy and girl the same. Not asking for somebody's opinion but a fact .
The questions and follow up that Mall provided does look into facts, but mall's opinion on what the facts mean is subjective. This opinion also forgets about other factors like a person's senses and personal response to said senses. For example, not everyone likes to be spanked during sex. This could prevent a man from ejaculating, but not for those who like it. Why? Because sex caters to subjective stimuli.
What is stimuli? Well for sex, its the stuff that gets us off. Makes us horny and able to have sex. Our ability to feel, smell, taste, see, and hear all influence what we do for sex. We do not get stimulated by the sexual acts we do not like or do not want to do.
I don't know what you mean by "Why are we disconnecting "?
When we do not consider how our brains influence sex, then we are disconnecting or taking away a very important factor that helps us understand the debate topic.
Including these factors help us see how Mall's position, that gay lifestyle does not make sense, is a subjective opinion.
A non reproductive act that utilizes, not separate but UTILIZES reproductive material.
How does a non reproductive act utilize reproductive material? Considering reproductive material is utilized or used during reproductive acts - sperm goes in, conception, etc. the reproductive material is not used during non reproductive acts.
This part doesn't make sense and I wish we had more rounds to go in depth but like I said we can do a part two. It's because the stimulation ....
Stop. Yes the stimulation causes eventual ejaculation along with how that stimulation makes the man feel. How we feel is subjective. For example,some A-sexual men do not like how sex feels and have reported not ejaculating during sex.
This is influenced by how we feel and how we interpret that feeling. As I said before this is dependent on subjectivity because we don't all feel or respond to feel in the same way.
Mall introduces a new comparison between disorders like anorexia and anal sex. There is a simple error in these comparisons. The disorders listed are disorders because there is a disconnect between what people think vs what they sense (in this case see). For the person with anorexia they may see a skinny individual but their brain is disconnected from what they see to have an opinion that they are fat.
There is no disconnect between the senses during anal sex vs how the brain responds or thinks. We feel sex and respond to it with our likes. Our brain registers each feeling in accordance to what reality is.
Again. A person with a disorder will not be able to like/dislike what their senses tell them because their brain is disconnected from their senses and unable to register reality. A (gay) man who has no disorders will be able to register their senses during (anal) sex and respond with likes/dislikes.
I feel like Mall will say I concede or forfiet the debate instead of the validity of the questions themselves.
Does your position require an answer to move forward?
Probably want pg
@con
Please keep the sources classy... Which is to say PG-13.