"Dropped point" refers to someone dropping their claim not if they don't support it well. Considering they haven't responded to my rebuttal against my rebuttal starting an entire new claim I assume he has dropped it. Though you're right, it's possible he hasn't dropped it.
Also if you consider a "dropped point" as not supporting it well, he still does not have a backed up response with evidence.
Also his "valid explanation" is not really considered valid being he hasn't backed it up. I have already responded to his claims "when something disrupts the function of an individual, it is wrong." and he has not responded to them. Hence why I think he has dropped that claim. (You would not be assuming their gender as their gender is being displayed in their profile).
I never mentioned homosexuality as a illness. I simply say they did not CHOOSE to be homosexual, not they did not choose to have these illness (referring to homosexuality).
1. Unsure what you mean?
2. Homosexuality is not a practice, I have already stated the definition. I am not sure where you're getting that an illness is a trait. The definition of a trait is: "a distinguishing quality or characteristic, typically one belonging to a person." I don't think an illness is a characteristic of someone. You are referring to homosexuality as a disorder. I have already proved how it isn't a disorder. Con has not provided ANY evidence on how homosexuality is a disorder. In a sense con is wrong.
Might be my last response. I don't want him getting any ideas.
Disclaimer: It's not that con isn't doing a good job, i'm just genuinely curious how they're doing a good job or bad job for future reference.
I agree with you. However, is it possible for you to define "pretty good job"?
Con has yet to provide any scientific evidence towards any of their claims or rebuttals against my claims.
Furthermore, they dropped their claim, "homosexuality is a disorder is proven correct by the claim homosexuality disrupts functions of an individual, where disorder is defined as "something that disrupts of functions of an individual". While dropping this and not responding to my objections, they leave my claims standing.
Hi Wylted,
When creating this debate I was playing devil's advocate, as this is my first debate I would like a much debated topic in the world!
However, when you brought up this comment it gave me a chance to think "do I think homosexuality is alright?". The answer is yes, I do see that man on man sex should be alright and/or okay. There is nothing harmful (that I can see) with man on man sex.
It is most obvious you are hetrosexual, which is completely fine. However a sexual orientation is based on person to person, you finding something unattractive can be attractive to something else. Such as I might like pasta while others might find it disgusting.
"Dropped point" refers to someone dropping their claim not if they don't support it well. Considering they haven't responded to my rebuttal against my rebuttal starting an entire new claim I assume he has dropped it. Though you're right, it's possible he hasn't dropped it.
Also if you consider a "dropped point" as not supporting it well, he still does not have a backed up response with evidence.
Also his "valid explanation" is not really considered valid being he hasn't backed it up. I have already responded to his claims "when something disrupts the function of an individual, it is wrong." and he has not responded to them. Hence why I think he has dropped that claim. (You would not be assuming their gender as their gender is being displayed in their profile).
I never mentioned homosexuality as a illness. I simply say they did not CHOOSE to be homosexual, not they did not choose to have these illness (referring to homosexuality).
1. Unsure what you mean?
2. Homosexuality is not a practice, I have already stated the definition. I am not sure where you're getting that an illness is a trait. The definition of a trait is: "a distinguishing quality or characteristic, typically one belonging to a person." I don't think an illness is a characteristic of someone. You are referring to homosexuality as a disorder. I have already proved how it isn't a disorder. Con has not provided ANY evidence on how homosexuality is a disorder. In a sense con is wrong.
Might be my last response. I don't want him getting any ideas.
Disclaimer: It's not that con isn't doing a good job, i'm just genuinely curious how they're doing a good job or bad job for future reference.
I agree with you. However, is it possible for you to define "pretty good job"?
Con has yet to provide any scientific evidence towards any of their claims or rebuttals against my claims.
Furthermore, they dropped their claim, "homosexuality is a disorder is proven correct by the claim homosexuality disrupts functions of an individual, where disorder is defined as "something that disrupts of functions of an individual". While dropping this and not responding to my objections, they leave my claims standing.
Never mind.
Hm, I see. I guess I'll try doing devil's advocate.
I would just like to be clear,
Con is supposed to be arguing why Ukraine should join NATO?
While PRO is arguing why Ukraine should join Russia?
Thank you.
You haven't answered my question for anyone and/or me to be responding to your question.
I apologize for how long it is taking for me to respond, as currently I am trying to fit all my words in my rebuttal.
Would you be willing to have a mod change the amount of characters we are able to use, if even possible? If not that is quite alright as well.
*can be attractive to someone (not something) else*
Hi Wylted,
When creating this debate I was playing devil's advocate, as this is my first debate I would like a much debated topic in the world!
However, when you brought up this comment it gave me a chance to think "do I think homosexuality is alright?". The answer is yes, I do see that man on man sex should be alright and/or okay. There is nothing harmful (that I can see) with man on man sex.
It is most obvious you are hetrosexual, which is completely fine. However a sexual orientation is based on person to person, you finding something unattractive can be attractive to something else. Such as I might like pasta while others might find it disgusting.
It really does depend on how you view, do you consider Jesus and God different? Or do you view them the same?