Instigator / Pro
0
1389
rating
406
debates
43.97%
won
Topic
#5897
Dual topic : Homosexuality and abortion are two sides of the same coin. Consensual sex is consenting to pregnancy.
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1242
rating
388
debates
39.43%
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.
Send a message for questions on the topic.
Please do not accept if you foresee yourself not having time to participate.
Round 1
Where there is a topic on homosexuality...... there's this individual. Like a bat signal.
I believe this individual has argued for abortion.
One topic was " Abortion is morally good (Challenge for Mall)".
Another was "In most cases, abortion should be legal".
So the opposing side has argued for abortion.
Another topic the opposing side has participated in was "Homosexuality is harmless in moderation".
The opposing side argued in that debate in appearance of some endorsement.
Another one "There's justification for teaching homosexuality in academic schools."
Many others agreed with the opposing side in endorsing this as well.
Another one.
"Is homosexuality a sin according to the bible"
Another,
"There's nothing wrong with being against homosexuality also meaning to discourage it as well."
So forth and so on and everything that is related in discussing.
So the opposing side has demonstrated the one coin with two sides. The opposing side can make arguments for both.
So that proves it's not impossible to have the two sides be joined. The opposing side concedes in advance.
I'm arguing it is impossible to not have them joined. You try to tear it apart or in half , you only have half a coin that will not suffice. You need the whole coin to represent what it is .
You can not support homosexual behavior and yet be opposed to abortion. People have argued by biological means, what would be the evolutionary process for the existence of such behavior?
A natural evolved trait to control the births of human kind. That is what abortion accomplishes.
If the majority or more of a substantial number of folks were homosexual, would abortion be few and far between to non existent?
Of course it would. If more of anything is used as a substitute in function such as any coin that is in more circulation, any other unit in currency would be under used .
Very straightforward.
You can not support homosexual behavior and yet be opposed to abortion. People have argued by biological means, what would be the evolutionary process for the existence of such behavior?
A natural evolved trait to control the births of human kind. That is what abortion accomplishes.
Consensual sex is consenting to pregnancy.
Why I say that?
I like to explain these things with everyday common occurrences.
When I pick up a t.v. remote to use it, I'm using it for its function to contact the t.v. so how am I not consenting or agreeing to the use of that when that is what it does when I use it ?
People say pregnancy is a risk. A risk is a probability to something that is done incorrectly abusing or misusing the function of something.
When sex is done correctly for what it supposed to do, you actually do achieve pregnancy, you don't achieve the risk. People are conflating outcomes and risks together.
Now I'm going to cite what the opposing side has stated on this subject already and afterwards the opposing side will either be consistent and forfeit or either be inconsistent and continue to argue
commiting further inconsistency (forfeiture).
The opposing side has stated the following:
-->
@<<<Mall>>>
consensual sexual intercourse is consensual pregnancy by the way
"Yes. Never have sex.
Consenting to sex is consenting to get STD."
Now this was this person's response as it appears to be some sort of counter. Trying to equate pregnancy to a sexual transmitted disease. However, one is a function and the other is not and this short discord in the forum presented a refresher to the opposing side on the distinction between the two.
-->
@<<<Mall>>>
You agree that there are risks and if done right, you can avoid them
"Risk of pregnancy is avoided by abortion."
Here the opposing side is affirming the risk of pregnancy, pregnancy is a risk.
-->
@<<<Mall>>>
Pregnancy in nature is the outcome of the function to sexual intercourse for the umpteenth time. You can call it a risk. It's just like calling a risk of driving, operating a motor vehicle.
"You can avoid pregnancy by having an abortion so pregnancy isnt a problem."
The point still remains that pregnancy is the outcome of function. The opposing side did not mention or classify it as a risk at this point most likely due to the illustration I made with the motor vehicle.
It is of no matter that a function can be an exclusive not inherit but exclusive problem to be avoided.
But why is it still consent to pregnancy? It's consent to the function. The function is connected or linked to its aftermath. It's like saying we agree to the fire being hot but do not agree to what's under the fire or on the fire to be hot.
Trying to manipulate the function as we can see produces the problematic situations instead of just abstaining from something to be used for what it's used for.
Going back to the fire, trying to manipulate the fire, do fire tricks and schemes, recreation and playing around, you get burned playing with matches.
01.07.2025 05:15PM
4
6
10
-->
@<<<Mall>>>
Yes you can avoid the function of many things. Doesn't negate the function.
"Abortion removes the function so that sex can be done without pregnancy."
Now the opposing side is affirming just function here . Which there is no dispute that the function is being stripped.
Just like starting a fire but you continue to throw water on it or distinguish it. You do the act of what sparks the fire. So apparently you agree or consent to what it does .
But what is it when people engage in sex but voice they don't want to get pregnant? An oxymoron. It's backpedaling.
I'm clicking this remote button but I don't want the t.v . on. But that is what the remote button clicking does .
I want to inseminate but I don't want insemination. You doing exactly what you want to get what you don't want. Conflicting statement, right. Well that is why we have all this conflict today regarding so called unplanned pregnancy and the controversy and reclassifying what pregnancy is . Which I helped the opposing side right here in these comments posted rectify the classifications back to their correct order .
01.08.2025 06:30PM
4
6
10
-->
@<<<Mall>>>
Of course it removes the function of sex. I agree. Many won't even admit that. I credit you comrade.
"Thanks"
Here the opposing side is expressing thanks to me for giving the credit of the opposing admittance to my original point that the function, not the risk is being removed.
All the while, all the long, trying to argue the function you spark or initiate is risk at the same time.
The dilemma of conflation.
I'm done. The "opposing" side can ask questions, make comments, etc.
Either that or go silent and sit this one out.
I remember an individual tried to argue that a single person decides what the function is.
Well person meaning the body because the body has its innate decision on it, sure.
Sidenote: They're trying to ban me like Trump on discord.
The live debates may come to an end.
Sidenote: They're trying to ban me like Trump on discord.The live debates may come to an end.
That sucks. I guess people on discord dont really believe in debating.
Where there is a topic on homosexuality...... there's this individual. Like a bat signal.
It happens I guess.
Topic 1: Homosexuality and abortion are two sides of the same coin.
My opponent didnt seem to specify what "coin" is. The best I could gather is that person who supports homosexuality must support abortion, which is obviously false. Plenty of people on the Republican side think that homosexuals are okay, but that abortions arent.
If I were to concede that all persons who support homosexuality support abortion, then I dont know what is there to debate, as that was the only point.
Topic 2: Consensual sex is consenting to pregnancy.
Obviously, gay consensual sex isnt consenting to pregnancy.
Consenting means agreeing to. A woman who has sex while using protection clearly isnt agreeing to be pregnant.
My opponent uses different words like "function" and "risk", but these arent arguments.
Woman agrees that there is sometimes function/risk/chance of pregnancy. This doesnt mean she agrees with pregnancy. Thus, even if I were to concede that function of sex is pregnancy, it still wouldnt lead to conclusion that agreeing to sex is agreeing to pregnancy, because "function" and "agreeing to function" are different and arent mutually inclusive.
Further, my opponent has done some work of basically quoting me. In fact, he used up most of his round 1 quoting and then responding to quotes.
If he wants to address my quotes and my previous debates, sure, I guess he can. However, I am not going to go explaining each quote and each debate he mentions. This isnt a debate about me as a topic.
Round 2
"Republican side think that homosexuals are okay, but that abortions arent."
Yes they're in contradiction, I agree. I appreciate you giving an example of a conflicted group.
"If I were to concede that all persons who support homosexuality support abortion, then I dont know what is there to debate, as that was the only point."
Many people do realize their inconsistency and I may have to demonstrate you're one of them being that you're attempting to argue against me unless you concede .
"Obviously, gay consensual sex isnt consenting to pregnancy.
Consenting means agreeing to".
Very interesting aspect. We can argue that it is . Which was why homosexuality was diagnosed as an illness back in the 1970s.
Goes back to the first round , I said :
"But why is it still consent to pregnancy? It's consent to the function. The function is connected or linked to its aftermath."
Additionally:
"I want to inseminate but I don't want insemination. You doing exactly what you want to get what you don't want."
With that said, what do homosexual males want?
Homosexual males that want to use what they use doing penile sexual activity want that and agree to using that. When we look beyond the surface, these males desire and consent to inseminate, but do it with the wrong sex.
See, the function of insemination is what conjures up the libido or drive to use it which the homosexual males in their mind may categorize as just same gender loving intimacy.
But this drive and desire to do such things with same sex individuals you are attracted to do this with , hence the diagnosis. Effectively, these men are attracted to inseminate one other. But men can't do that but yet desire to as they desire to engage in the penile sexual reproductive use of the organ with the same sex that is inapplicable to it.
So yes, biologically homosexuals consent to it as well in paradoxical terms.
"A woman who has sex while using protection clearly isnt agreeing to be pregnant."
Question, is her body agreeing to it?
If you say yes, is the woman disagreeing with own body?
If you say yes, why does she desire for a man to penetrate her to the point of his climax at least?
Surely the woman is not contradicting her own desires. She is engaging in this because of a desire brought on by biological functionality in which that functionality it linked to the aftermath of pregnancy biologically.
Subconsciously , that is unbeknownst to her, not a thought to her, but she is biologically wired in agreement with this and has done things in tandem with it.
If you like, next round, I can give examples. I've given you enough to unpack and tackle with her with the questions I asked you non rhetorically.
"My opponent uses different words like "function" and "risk", but these arent arguments."
Good because I don't have to argue this. You dropped your position as to what was said to be risk and you affirmed it as function to what I said demonstrated via all those posts.
"Thus, even if I were to concede that function of sex is pregnancy, it still wouldnt lead to conclusion that agreeing to sex is agreeing to pregnancy, because "function" and "agreeing to function" are different and arent mutually inclusive."
So again because you have not debunked this, I made these illustrations that have gone uncountered. Your rebuttals in this topic so far is on the short side. You have a week, add up the counterpoints .
When I'm agreeing to use something for what it does, how am I'm then truly looking to reject the outcome?
I don't disagree with the outcome by said cause.
If I don't want the outcome, I will not being doing what is designed to cause it. I will not engage in sex because I do not agree to producing offspring. The issue of abortion will always be present with the so called unwanted pregnancy because people are doing to get what they say they don't want .
I will not push that power button on that t.v. remote because I don't authorize or consent to having that television on .
The problem with that is because I enjoy simply pressing the button but I say I don't want the button to fulfill its function, that's exactly what I'm agreeing to the acknowledgement of. Which is its function the way it works by my engaging in/with it. I'm doing something that will do what that something does.
Now if you disagree, refute my example, refute my illustration.
"If he wants to address my quotes and my previous debates, sure, I guess he can. However, I am not going to go explaining each quote and each debate he mentions. This isnt a debate about me as a topic."
No it just proves that you can argue for both homosexuality and abortion. So if you can do it, why couldn't they be both sides of one coin?
One is in bed with the other, goes hand and hand , two sides of the same coin, etc.
Forfeited
Round 3
I rest my case.
Forfeited
Round 4
Certainly a forfeit from the opposing side. We can't attribute it to timing because the same individual took the time to accept other challenges.
Yes.
Round 5
Opposing side takes time to respond to confirm.
Case closed.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good debate topic. I want to see the outcome