Is homosexuality evil?

>>Because both sides were arguing on implicitly different definitions - as I explained - they’re effectively arguing different resolutions. Neither of which appear to be the sensible interpretation of the debate description.

Oh. That makes more sense. I was going off both of them using the same definitions. Do you have a clear example where both were talking about two different things?

I’m not sure that you’re entirely getting the nuance here.

To win Pro must affirm the resolution, con must negate (with burden on pro).

The resolution is a product of what is written in the title, description, and based upon the definition used by both sides.

Because both sides were arguing on implicitly different definitions - as I explained - they’re effectively arguing different resolutions. Neither of which appear to be the sensible interpretation of the debate description.

As no one really justifies why their version of the resolution is correct - and both stray from the resolution specified - I could easily arbitrarily chose either side as the winner and so chose neither.

>>Beliefs are irrelevant - I vote on the arguments.

Where did I claim this? My position is vote on the arguments.

>>Both sides argue past each other on this front, and don’t bother to establish which is the correct way to view an affirmation of the resolution. While I could have gone straight for Tiwaz, on the grounds that his interpretation is close to the definitions; he subtly undermines that point himself, but not enough for me to take pros side.

Con started off with arguments then Pro did not clearly lay out what he was doing. Con used Pro's Round as the basis of his issues then it spiraled out of control. It would only be fair to deduct a conduct point for Tiwaz on the grounds of not being clear with what he was doing. Where did he mention in Round 1 that he was doing a "My first round was not dedicated to rebuttals, after all there was little point in me doing so before I layed out a simplistic case for my own side ". Saying "I will keep this first round quite short and to the point." doesn't mean that he will or will not talk about the rebuttals. Con had a problem with that very thing that Pro neglected to address. It is not out of question to expect rebuttals only to have a Round dedicated to only claims.

>>So how do I know what consistutes the resolution being affirmed? I don’t know:

Do you mean how do I know who gave better arguments when what was being debated on was not clearly laid out?

>>both sides argue their own view, and don’t really do anything to show their position is correct over the others.

Isn't rebuttals and making argument for their own positions enough reason to say that they think the arguments they are making are correct?

Beliefs are irrelevant - I vote on the arguments.

To affirm the resolution - does pro merely have to show one minor, trivial aspect to affirm? Or does he have to affirm by proving, in detail, that homosexuality is worse than being heterosexual/white/black etc.

Both sides argue past each other on this front, and don’t bother to establish which is the correct way to view an affirmation of the resolution. While I could have gone straight for Tiwaz, on the grounds that his interpretation is close to the definitions; he subtly undermines that point himself, but not enough for me to take pros side.

So how do I know what consistutes the resolution being affirmed? I don’t know: both sides argue their own view, and don’t really do anything to show their position is correct over the others.

"Supported with outdated data and points that didn't directly support what he was arguing for. Did you miss that?"

It's better than using sources which don't even specify what we're arguing about, as I pointed out in the debate - literally none of his sources are on homosexual sex specifically. It is certainly convenient you chose to ignore the last round entirely in your vote, because all of this was spelled out quite clearly.

All of my STD sources were quite up-to-date from the CDC, presented in round 1 as a foundation for using my other sources. I also acknowledged myself in the debate that general life expectency was climbing, I said the discrepancy remains the same. It's almost like you're willingly discluding things which contradict your points.

>>As I can’t chose which resolution is more accurate - both sides argue that their interpretation is the one that should be followed, but unless I missed something, neither explained why in a way that allows me to say “you know, that interpretation makes more sense”

What do you mean by interpretation? That can basically mean anything. I interpreted from this debate that Tiwaz is an Evangelical conservative who dislikes gays. I interpreted from the debate cthulhu is now real. Do you have a standard for this interpretation or is my cthulhu on the same level as Tiwaz being an Evangelical conservative who dislikes gays?

Just to point this out. You have not really addressed what my critique was. I'll lay it out in another way with what you said. If you take what they value by Tiwaz valuing his dislike for gays then this information has given him his basis for his dislike for gays whereas if you take what PinkFreud08 values that he likes gays he would use information that suits his narrative to support that.

If we go by values I can simply say I value PinkFreud08 and by showing my value I will vote for him. I can also say I value voting against gay-haters which is why I vote against them. See the problems with values in using that as a way to vote? The better way of doing things is if either side has provided a substantial enough argument for their burden in the debate. I found only PinkFreud08 doing so.

Scroll down.

>> For Pro - it is exclusively that there is some harm visited upon society by homosexuals.

Supported with outdated data and points that didn't directly support what he was arguing for. Did you miss that?

>>For Con: this resolution appears to be “homosexuality is directly and on balance no more harmful to society than any other group”. Of course this is my paraphrasing of the way both presented their arguments.

Okay. He did say it is morally neutral then began to say how homosexuality is not harmful to society so close enough.

>>I think both sides proved their side of that resolution based on that specific value condition they interpreted.

Okay so what about how we know what they value is met sufficiently. Do you have another value that both have made substantial arguments?

>> Few people actively spell out their interpretation of the resolution and argue in support of it over the other. Meaning voters are often left to chose which of the two argued resolutions they prefer in this situationsr. Often one is a bit more intuive, or the definitions more specific - but in this case I can’t take cons side as the resolution doesn’t include his aspects, and I can’t take pros side as I don’t think “any harm whatsoever” is the default interpretation of “harmful to society”.

Don't understand this. Are you saying both did not provide a case for homosexuality being harmful or not harmful to society? I think you have already made it clear that they both have but you decide to talk about what they value. The problem is like you said they never said what there true intentions are you are inferring this. So basically your vote revolved around both sides doing sufficiently so equal that you can't find anyone of them doing a slight better than the other but under the assumptions of what they value both didn't meet your standards.

Continues...

>>I do hope that I'm wrong about this accusation. The only reason I kept poking at you all in the comments was to either disprove or prove my hypothesis.

More like wasted our time with your opinions.

>>Good luck, I'm only typing this response because you and Freud seem to both be fond of calling your opponents idiots and absurd.

When someone can't find a counter or can't even be reasonable how are they are not the very least an idiot? Guess you like defending people who can't be reasonable or consistent or in other words that you are not very fond of idiots and/or people who make absurd statements.

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: omar2345 // Mod Action: Not Removed

Reason for mod action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.

*******************************************************************

I interpreted his "evil" as being more harmful to society than the alternative or disproportionately harmful. This method of attack seemed to be the only way to address the topic that made sense to me, as anything can be considered harmful to society in one way (which is what freud pointed out).

Not that everything else meeting his definition would change homosexuality being evil, it would just make most things evil under his definition - because most things can be highly harmful in one way or another. I spelled this out clearly in the final round, I just didn't express the first paragraph because I thought it would be clear to anyone viewing.

Edit: If we are to assume just the resolution itself, and not my charitable revision, then I met my BoP on round 1. His primary argument seemed to be centered around "logical consistency," that is he compared certain unrelated things that are harmful in some way and thus technically would meet his definition of evil and defeated his own side, not my argument.

I do hope that I'm wrong about this accusation. The only reason I kept poking at you all in the comments was to either disprove or prove my hypothesis.

So much evidence has stacked up that it's impossible to be mere coincidence you vote for him every time. That was just the tip of the iceberg, not really my primary points of evidence - just a minor observation.

Good luck, I'm only typing this response because you and Freud seem to both be fond of calling your opponents idiots and absurd.

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: {username} // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources, s/g

RFD: See below

Reason for mod action: To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
 While the voter seemed to weigh them, they need to explain *how* they got there and how they reached their decision.

To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.


To award S/G points, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debaters' S/G.
 The key to awarding s/g is *excessiveness* and how it made the debate incomprehensible.

The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4

*******************************************************************

Primarily testing if I can vote, lo let's take a look.
Most convincing arguments:
-Isn't natural argument- 1 point con
-Sex is harmful- 1 point pro
-Ignored argument- 1 point con
-Ignored argument (Twice)- 1 point con
-Homosexuals die 20 years younger- 1 point pro
-Heart disease rebuttal- 1 point con
-Adopting argument- 1 point con
-High Bias Rates- 1 point con
-HIV rates and anal tissue- 1 point pro
-Longevity source rebuttal- 1 point con
-Final nail-in-coffin of comparative races- 1 point con
-Divorce argument- 1 point con
-Sources- 1 point pro
-Heart disease rebuttal- 1 point pro
-Kink rebuttal- 1 point pro
-Final Tally: con- 9 points. Pro- 6 points
Sources
Pro provided sources dated at over 20 years for a movement currently gaining speed and safety, therefore, point to con.
Spelling/grammar
Both sides had pretty good spelling, but I saw pro spell dying as dieing (4 times) so point to con.
Counduct
Tie, no swears or over-repetitiveness.

I know we aren't supposed to continue replying to each other but I want to prove there is no foul play here.
22 days ago, I was banned from voting because I continued to submit insufficient votes. Yesterday, I was messaged by virtuoso that I was allowed to vote again, so I picked the first debate I saw and voted on it. It still took me about half an hour to make my voting decision, as the debate was really long.

I admit I may have shortened what I meant about the arguments to a non understandable degree, but what I meant by sources was the argument DEBUNKING the sources provided.

Hi Omar,

This one is tricky: but I will clarify. I think the use of “value” here maybe a bit confusing.

Both sides are interpreting the resolution as the definition to mean two independent things. For Pro - it is exclusively that there is some harm visited upon society by homosexuals. For Con: this resolution appears to be “homosexuality is directly and on balance no more harmful to society than any other group”. Of course this is my paraphrasing of the way both presented their arguments.

I think both sides proved their side of that resolution based on that specific value condition they interpreted.

Few people actively spell out their interpretation of the resolution and argue in support of it over the other. Meaning voters are often left to chose which of the two argued resolutions they prefer in this situationsr. Often one is a bit more intuive, or the definitions more specific - but in this case I can’t take cons side as the resolution doesn’t include his aspects, and I can’t take pros side as I don’t think “any harm whatsoever” is the default interpretation of “harmful to society”.

As I can’t chose which resolution is more accurate - both sides argue that their interpretation is the one that should be followed, but unless I missed something, neither explained why in a way that allows me to say “you know, that interpretation makes more sense”

Me voting for someone because they said so doesn't equal I always vote for them wining. It just means they asked me to vote for them and I did. If lets say PinkFreud08 decides to make a debate about Trump being the greatest and him being Pro and asked me to vote on it. I doubt I could vote for him because the arguments against Trump being the greatest would be so much better.

My RFD was clearly fair and your arguments hardly address what I said in a way that was enough to say my RFD is wrong.

3.) He was "testing" the moderators. This one would be me.

Your the idiot for having awful arguments and not acknowledging they were bad arguments. I can't help people who are incapable of helping themselves. You take the position homosexuality is harmful to society and expect to somehow be on the same level as you. For me in your eyes to vote fairly I would have to be a religious person who also dislikes homosexuals to be in the right frame of mind to vote for you because those arguments were awful. Outdated, insufficient and in cases didn't even provide a point for your side.

Complain all you like. I'll wait until Virutoso, bsh1, Ramshutu decide to check the vote.

>>I can take pros value and pro wins, I can take cons value and con wins

Would this be true in any scenario? This distinction to me doesn't actually mean anything. If I am interpreting this correctly every single debate you have voted on you would have to vote a tie because they value X which is why they debated in the way that they did. Even in debates what will you be arguing about? Their values or their arguments for how to best commit to that value or defend the value?

You are basically for women subjugation because Christianity values it. You would be for women freedom because a liberal society values. Am I wrong here?

Understood.

Alright yeah sorry I was typing and posted this right as you said that. My bad.

It's actually kinda funny, I was going to give you another chance and not block you.

However, considering you just ignored me debunking your vote argument, I'm done with you.

You have dodged my argument not once, not twice, but three times.

Dodged several key points on this debate

And dodged several counter-arguments against your absurd claims.

Why should I continually debunk your points when you continue to go around in circles and espouse the same arguments again?

You are blocked and banned from participating in any of my debates for this reason.

Now I will debunk a claim Tiwaz made in the comments, consider this response a gift.

" also never claimed his vote was removed for that reason, it was removed specifically due to him not surveying the arguments sufficiently"

You failed to explain how him not making a clear vote makes him " bias ".

I mean I will admit he didn't make a great vote the first time around, but again how does this equate to him being " bias"

Anyways I hope one day when you get older, you look back on this entire debate and think about how immature and of a poor debater you were back than and how much you changed.

Because really, you have potential.

I've seen you in several debates and while I do sometimes disagree with your positions, you do sometimes actually make pretty solid arguments.

My advice to you would be to actually respond to your opponent's arguments in the future and actually answer them.

Good day.

I am off work and will be looking into everything tomorrow. That being said, please stop replying to each other. This is an official moderator restraining order.

You're welcome to talk to the moderators, as for me I'm willing to let the evidence speak for itself. In-fact, I implore you to private message them, as you're clearly quite adept at that.

Omar's votes account for nearly half of your debates, in many cases they prevent you from losing when other people voted against you. Such as:

https://www.debate.org/debates/Girls-joining-the-Boy-Scouts-Of-America/2/
https://www.debate.org/debates/Socialism-is-evil/3/

I also never claimed his vote was removed for that reason, it was removed specifically due to him not surveying the arguments sufficiently. I said you should read the vote before I go about justifying bias to you. Moderators post the content of every vote they've removed in the comments, but just in-case they forgot I also screenshotted it.

I would like for the mods to please read me debunking Tiwaz's absurd accusations in my previous comment.

To summarize,

Tiwaz's " evidence " is nothing more than circumstantial evidence that really doesn't prove much aside from me PMing people asking for them to vote on debates which to my knowledge isn't against the rules.

It's not like I asked Omar to specifically vote for me, I asked him to vote on a debate of mine.

“ On his debate.org profile he has voted for you at least 10 times - and against you only once, where you directly conceded. When you combine this with the fact you just openly admitted to contacting him through private messaging prior to this vote, it becomes very evident that option 1 or 2 is incredibly more likely than option 3.”

This is a very heavy accusation which doesn’t make sense once you begin to think about it and here’s why…

Correlation doesn’t equal causation, just because he votes for me alot doesn’t mean he is bias.
Did you ever think I may just be a good debater?

I have a near perfect record on debate.org with only one lost debate with OTHER people voting on them as well.

I am having trouble how this equates to “ vote rigging “.

I am not trying to flaunt my ratio around, however facts are facts it’s more likely my arguments were better then my opponents on the debates he voted on.

2. You once again have dodged the question again, you STILL haven’t explained how contacting people to vote on debates is “ vote rigging “.

“ . If you concede, he bases his vote exclusively on your concession, and not the opponent's argument.”

Plenty of people vote purely on concessions and don’t actually look at the opponent’s argument much.

I used to do that plenty on other debates on this site before it became a rule.

I don’t see how that equates to him “ vote rigging “ or being “ bias “.

To conclude, Tiwaz has repeatedly dodged questions and made baseless accusations which make zero sense.

" In his reasoning, linked in his vote he states: "Clearly true by looking at the contenders Round 1 arguments." and goes on to justify giving you a conduct point on a similar basis"

- Straw manning his entire position on almost all levels. You made a claim of sex being harmful in round 1, then completely ignored the benefits of sex I made in R1 being centered around Sex being beneficial to one's psychological and medical health.

“ I didn't even write that as a refutation of his vote, I only put it there to show admitted vote rigging on another site. I think I have built a substantial case for this accusation by now.”

Once again Tiwaz has COMPLETELY ignored my question.

How is me ASKING people for votes “ vote rigging “?

Doing that is NOT against the rules, plenty of people make comments tagging a bunch of people asking for votes.

You once again completely dodged my question, because of this I will be blocking Tiwaz shortly after I finish responding to his absurd accusations.

This has happened numerous times throughout the debate, in the comments, and in another debate. I am not going to continue responding to Tiwaz when he won’t answer simple questions and instead will dodge and ignore them. Sorry not going to tolerate it.

“ I think you should inspect Omar's prior vote (and my objections to it) which was removed by moderators before we ask how I'm justifying bias.”

Note, Omar’s vote WASN’T removed for being “ bias “ at all.

The only reason it was removed was because he didn’t explain clearly enough.

Very obvious misrepresentation of the Mod’s decision.

I will tag you as well.

It is for all the reasons I have outlined in my comments, in addition to Omar's votes, that I formally accuse all three of them of Vote Rigging. Admittedly, most of this is circumstantial evidence except for the direct admission by Debaticus on a prior debate of his (which I linked in my previous comment).

This is the absolute best case I can imagine being provided short of PM doxxing.

I do not take this accusation lightly, and to avoid a kangaroo court I will leave this up to the mods to decide.
------
II. Vote Bombs
C. Vote Rigging

Vote rigging is when someone solicits deliberately biased votes in order to rig the outcome of a vote. Votes stemming from vote rigging will be removed. It is not vote rigging to ask for someone to cast a fair vote. Vote trading may or may not be vote rigging, depending on whether the outcome of the traded votes is fixed or agreed upon before the debates are evaluated by the voters.

I think you should inspect Omar's prior vote (and my objections to it) which was removed by moderators before we ask how I'm justifying bias. Once you've done that, there are 4 options that I can think of which we arrive to.

1.) He did not read the debate, and just assumed you won on the basis of only your arguments.
2.) He willfully ignored counter-evidence and voted for you without including it.
3.) He was "testing" the moderators for 'funsies.'
4.) He's an idiot.

As tempting as option 4 is - he clearly isn't an idiot, as evidenced by his prior debates. On his debate.org profile he has voted for you at least 10 times - and against you only once, where you directly conceded. When you combine this with the fact you just openly admitted to contacting him through private messaging prior to this vote, it becomes very evident that option 1 or 2 is incredibly more likely than option 3.

We may now add in a fifth number in there, as the cat's out of the bag: 5) Vote Rigging

Sometimes bias just isn't enough, and we must go that extra mile for someone to vote for us every time regardless of the opponents arguments. If you concede, he bases his vote exclusively on your concession, and not the opponents argument. I think I have built as solid a case as any, considering everything else, in tandem with the direct admission by debaticus in his debate.org vote, and your admission of PMing Omar himself directly.

Considering in Omar's vote he agrees with you when you stated "OPPONENT IGNORING MY ARGUMENTS" it is not a strawman. I was not talking about the debate here, I was talking about the votes. In his reasoning, linked in his vote he states: "Clearly true by looking at the contender’s Round1 arguments." and goes on to justify giving you a conduct point on a similar basis - though he doesn't, because he would like to hold it against me for future purpose, another example of dishonest (and probably illegal) voting.

"you didn't explain how he was only voting for me other than a summoned PM."

I was simply not referring to the vote on this debate, I linked it in the comment if you'd care to take a gander at the votes. I didn't even write that as a refutation of his vote, I only put it there to show admitted vote rigging on another site. I think I have built a substantial case for this accusation by now.

" Moreover, I did not need to address your rebuttals in the first round - they were aimed at a position I do not hold. This, coupled with the fact you stated BoP was on me not you, implying I had to prove something not disprove something."

- Obvious strawman, I understand you not rebutting the claims in the first round. I am talking about my rebuttals to the arguments I made in the second round.

You actually do have to disprove my debunktions.

" Tell me where I accused you in my previous comment."

My bad I meant Omar

" I accused him of biased voting because that much at least was apparent."

Please elaborate, you called him bias earlier but still haven't explained why.

" He gave all the points to you without thoroughly analyzing any of the arguments, or presenting a proper case for awarding a single point - despite awarding all 7. "

- Firstly you actually dodged my question which I predicted, you didn't explain how he was only voting for me other than a summoned PM.

Or explained how this is even bad in the first place.

- Secondly, Debaticus didn't award me the conduct point, even if he did he gave good enough reasons why. I don't see what the problem is.

You still actually haven't properly debunked his points on his debate.

" If nothing else, I thank you for admitting to PMing Omar, and thus making his reason for a biased conclusion and analysis apparent."

- Please explain how asking someone to look at a debate makes their vote automatically bias?

Are you calling pretty much everyone on this site bias because pretty much everyone tags other people in the comments asking for votes?

To conclude, you have gone on to ONCE AGAIN dodge questions and instead made nothing but baseless accusations.

The next time you do this, you'll be blocked so I'll give you one last chance.

ANSWER my questions and stop dodging. I won't let you do it anymore, just stop dodging and answer the questions.

Moreover, I did not need to address your rebuttals in the first round - they were aimed at a position I do not hold. This, coupled with the fact you stated BoP was on me not you, implying I had to prove something not disprove something.

Tell me where I accused you of anything in my previous comment. I did not mention your name once in that entire comment (aside from identifying the debate), or any of my comments against Omar in an accusation. I accused him of biased voting because that much atleast was apparent.

I only stated Debaticus, on that debate, voted for you for no reason other than "Summoned via PM." He gave all the points to you without thoroughly analyzing any of the arguments, or presenting a proper case for awarding a single point - despite awarding all 7. Which of you specifically contacted him in this debate or the other is completely irrelevant to me.

If nothing else, I thank you for admitting to PMing Omar, and thus making his reason for a biased conclusion and analysis apparent.

Very obviously you have taken the entire situation out of context and have gone on to make baseless accusations against me and debaticus.

" It was on me to prove that homosexuality is harmful, not to disprove arguments he made that bore no relevance to my argument."

- I made rebuttals which you did not counter, that were the arguments you ignored.

If you didn't falsify my rebuttals, then my debunking of your points still stand.

" m also curious as to why you awarded 1 point to me for sources then gave con the source point."

- Pretty sure this was a typo.

" I may also note that I was not suspicious of foul play before, but upon viewing https://www.debate.org/debates/Have-the-conservatives-in-America-lost-the-battle-with-the-leftists/1/ I have a strong suspicion."

- Can you actually logically answer this question, how did I engage in " foul " play in this debate?

Don't dodge this question either like you always do, actually, answer and back up your poor hypothesis.

" In this debate, you voted for Freud/Squeakly under no basis other than "summoned from a PM." "

- False I haven't even talked to debaticus for quite some time, and I certainly didn't pm him to vote.

The only person I PMed was Omar but that was only because the debate wasn't getting any votes.

Is there something wrong with PMing people to request for votes? Lots of people on the website do so. and plus it's not against the rules.

Now if I was PMing Omar and asking " Hey please vote for me on this debate," then we can talk about this being poor conduct. But that's not the case, actually, prove to me that PMing asking for votes is a bad thing? Don't dodge this question either.

Out of curiosity: which arguments did I ignore? He stated the burden of proof was 90% on me in the description, so it only stands to reason I would first lay out a case in the first round that is not contradicted by his prior statements. It was on me to prove that homosexuality is harmful, not to disprove arguments he made that beared no relevance to my argument.

I'm also curious as to why you awarded 1 point to me for sources then gave con the source point.

I may also note that I was not suspicious of foul play before, but upon viewing https://www.debate.org/debates/Have-the-conservatives-in-America-lost-the-battle-with-the-leftists/1/ I have a strong suspicion.

In this debate you voted for Freud/Squeakly under no basis other than "summoned from a PM." Your last vote on this website specifically was 22 days ago. Now, given the above and given Omar is on your friendslist, we can reasonably assume he PMed you to request a vote due to his being called into question.

(1/3)I'm going to keep this brief, because I do not have much time.

You have blatantly ignored my justification/arguments and based your statements upon prior bias. This, including the fact you earlier stated "That vote was me wanting to see if I can get away with what I deemed to be a sufficient vote but guess it wasn't sufficient. My prior vote history is to vote for things I am interested in. "

So, you are not only being dishonest, but you are doing it tactically to see how much the mods will tolerate. I will provide several examples of your blatant dishonesty in the next comments. I would request the moderators disallow you from voting because of how clearly improper you're being, but that is likely against the rules.

(2/3) Example 1: “Not explained what is the main cause or howhomsexuals can get it. The point about “general filth” is bad if we do not knowthe context behind what is general. “

I was referring to the statistic which showed homosexuals practice fecal sex disproportionately (intentional or not). When a homosexual performs oral on the other partners rectum he will frequently ingest a medically significant amount of feces. I should not have to explain why eating shit is generally filthy. If you had actually read the conextual pieces you would know this and have not made the objection.

Example 2: "Was not supported by evidence."

In response to: “Sex is dangerous, and deviancy is harmful.”

I went on to support this in the following rounds, the prior round was also dedicated to supporting this partially through CDC STD statistics. Unless STDs don’t exist, or as I put it using Freud’s example - unwanted pregnancies.

Example 3: “Hasn’t explained how it was a false equivalenceonly said it. Before this he was explaining why whites are not harmful andblacks are harmful. Bears no relevance to the topic at hand.”

I have explained it several times throughout the debate – my objection to his “analogy” or “equivalence.” I stated it most succinctly in the final round “white people do not commit crime because they are white, black people do not commit crime because they are black. This is not analogous to my argument or my justification. They share only one thing in common and that is that they are harmful to society in some way - this does not mean my argument is applicable to them. “

Thus, I directly stated my justification behind it being a red herring or equvalence fallacy, but ignored by him and discluded from his vote conveniently, likely due to as he stated in the comments: "The last Rounds were nothing important to the specific topic at hand."

(3/3)These are selective examples as there were too many similar examples to directly insert into my comment, these are indicative of the majority of your vote. The arguments in the debate were very simplistic, if you were confident his case were stronger you would have summarized them rather then selectively addressing points devoid of larger context and surrounding justification.

I must also include this as a finality: "I can vote on conduct and sources but I doubt it is necessary because I don’t think anyone would vote for the contender so I'll just have my vote to be just about the most convincing argument. "

In other words, you are excluding a point you believe is proper in order to effectively hold it over my head - or my voters', in the case I get any.

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: {username} // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 2 points to pro for source, 1 point to con for s/g

RFD: Your gay and there is nothing you can don

Reason for mod action: In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts

The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4

*******************************************************************

If you're going to insult me, then at least make the insult funny or creative.

Or hell at least spell con right lol

Wish I could vote...

I said I would like to do so in his forum post, I don't like talking in the comments because it's impossible to format. That, and I believe there is a character limit and his vote is very long.

His prior vote was incredibly blatant in his disregard for anything which contradicted him.

You still haven't actually proved his vote was a misrepresentation or bias

Those two things only become contradictory if you isolate them from the part where I stated "I said I could show how this vote specifically was a misrepresentation in the forum post you made as it's easier to format there."

In short, I feel something is wrong with your vote but I don't want to impose on your forum post. I simply don't know if you're okay with me voicing my objections there.

"Unfair to say. That vote was me wanting to see if I can get away with what I deemed to be a sufficient vote but guess it wasn't sufficient. "

It is quite fair to say, even moreso since you were voting on the basis of testing the waters and not the actual arguments. I had no proof of vote rigging or even genuine tactical motive, but now assuming what you've said is true, one could only deduce you are doing the same thing you just admitted to with this current vote.

>>I wasn't attempting to prove it here, or even necessarily argue about it here.

>> I must address anything I feel is a strawman directly.

Okay?

>>Furthermore, your prior vote was a clear example of a dishonest vote in all regards. I am not going to directly accuse you of vote rigging, but I just find your conduct there highly suspicious when coupled with your vote history.

Unfair to say. That vote was me wanting to see if I can get away with what I deemed to be a sufficient vote but guess it wasn't sufficient. My prior vote history is to vote for things I am interested in. That can be people asking me to vote or a debate I have an interest in like the 2nd vote I ever gave.

I wasn't attempting to prove it here, or even necessarily argue about it here. I said I could show how this vote specifically was a misrepresentation in the forum post you made as it's easier to format there. Overall it's your choice, I am not going to overstep my boundaries, but I just felt like I would make the offer to point it out directly in-case you were actually just unaware.

Furthermore, your prior vote was a clear example of a dishonest vote in all regards. I am not going to directly accuse you of vote rigging, but I just find your conduct there highly suspicious when coupled with your vote history.

The moderators (assuming what ramshutu said was accurate), cannot address votes on the basis of honesty or accuracy therefore I must address anything I feel is a strawman directly.

It is not a dishonest or a misrepresentation of my vote. You haven't even showed it to be the case. I am not going to tell you what I already said that was said in my RFD. You clearly don't understand what you are talking about for even taking this debate let alone not substantiating anything. If you actually read my vote I did represent your points. You are just triggered that someone actually took the time to read the BS you put through.

To sum up. You failed to show how I am dishonest or how my vote is misrepresenting what you said.

Don't argue with me because I frankly couldn't even care to. Complain to bsh1, Ramshutu or Virtuoso if you actually think your critique holds up.

I take issue with the majority of your vote not because you side with him, but because you've misrepresented the debate and are being dishonest on the basis of prior bias. If you would like, I can go to that forum post and point out many examples of this directly.

I honestly expected to lose this debate considering I'm arguing for an unpopular position but this level of dishonesty is annoying.

That's their choice, hopefully they actually analyze the debates "arguments." You say I did not substantiate my points but I did on many occasions.

The arguments can largely be summarized in 2 paragraphs or less, you are selectively taking quotes and ignoring the surrounding context and justification. In-fact, you've chosen to simply ignore my assertion about the false-equivalence because "Even if the contender is right or wrong doesn’t mean that he has given an argument for homosexuality."

One of arguments is that homosexuality is responsible for the AIDs epidemic, along with 3 others, 2 of which you have both ironically ignored.

Fairly simplistic, I have justified the STD argument through empirical data with recent STD statistics from the CDC coupled with older data on behavior and the general impact on longevity.