Instigator / Pro
1
1485
rating
15
debates
36.67%
won
Topic
#5585

Anyone who calls everything they dislike is gay, is probably gay themselves

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
1
2

After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Mall
Tags
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
2
1420
rating
394
debates
43.65%
won
Description

For example, Nick Fuentes calls unhappily married men gay, even when they are married to females. Also, it is incorrect: if they are unhappy with their marriage, then they are not gay, as gay initially meant happy, and they certainly aren’t homosexual if they are married to females.

Round 1
Pro
#1
Best Korea said that "Thats pretty gay title” He/she is probably gay.

Mall accepted the debate so let’s look from there. I am not homo, and think the activity of it is a sin, based on religion. 

HOWEVER, Nick Fuentes calls unhappily married men gay, even when they are married to females. Also, it is incorrect: if they are unhappy with their marriage, then they are not gay, as gay initially meant happy, and they certainly aren’t homosexual if they are married to females. This is a perfect example to work with. I have a suspicion that Nick Fuentes is repressively a homosexual and since he does not want to upset his fanbase by being homo, he projects it onto others in the form of comedic entertainment.

Just to be clear, I am not faulting him for this: Homosexual activity is a sin, not homo thoughts or "hardwiring”.

Just as one person may be tempted to commit adultery or robbery or murder, which are all sins, they aren’t to be penalized until they actually do the sin. These are biblical and constitutional principles known as innocent until guilty, and due process. 

But yes, I think Nuck Fuentes is repressively homosexual and projects this onto others.
Con
#2
"Anyone who calls everything they dislike is gay, is probably gay themselves"

We need actual proof of homosexuality committed by people to conclude they are gay.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with what is said but by the actual desires and or actions.

I yield.
Round 2
Pro
#3
I said *probably* gay, not definetly. And you gave no proof either.

So you yield? Good. I win
Con
#4
Same difference, it doesn't matter.
Round 3
Pro
#5
"We need actual proof of homosexuality committed by people to conclude they are gay."
Gay people call their partner gay. This is proof that gay people calling other people gay is a sign of them being gay.
Con
#6
"Gay people call their partner gay. This is proof that gay people calling other people gay is a sign of them being gay."

It is not a sign. This is a very superficial face value amateur low hanging fruit amateur type argument .

A gay person involved sexually with a "partner" has exhibited homosexual attributes including behaviors. This is why the person would call the other gay albeit unnecessary.

Calling me gay doesn't mean I'm homosexual. My orientation actually has to be that for me to be that.

It's like a doctor is somebody you call a doctor. No. Somebody is a doctor by actual practice.

Not a serious topic obviously from the start but I humored it.

Thanks readers.