Homosexuality is a natural occurrence and is not significantly harmful to society.

Pro stated:The voters will note after a quick scan of the opponent's case that absolutely no research/testimony/cases were presented by the opponent. I cannot ignore what has not been produced. As it stands, the opponent hasn't backed up any of his claims with evidence, whereas I presented no less than 5 sources as evidence to my arguments. Con's response:First off , don't trust me. Go do your own research. Secondly you have not provided any evidence to disprove anything in regards to this argument. Also with mentioning being able to disprove things, you can't disprove private, personal accounts. Like it was stated before, pro's side wishes for this subject of homosexuality to be always 100% natural in all cases so Pro continues to bring it back in the debate. Continues the rebuttals upon it. There is not even a disagreement that homosexuality is natural in those cases that are presented to be. So let's progress on from here. If there are any questions that Pro has, bring them forth. Pro stated: I argued that, since homosexuality is a behavior specific to animals, but not limited to humans, it was wise to look at homosexuality in animals in order to determine whether said behavior is natural. The opponent argues that "non-person animals" and "people" differ on a large scale. While this is true, I already demon started that homosexuality is an animal behavior, not limited in scope to humans. As such, in determining whether the behavior is natural, it is best to look at the set of all animals, human or non-human. Con's Response: The Pro's side has failed to show the logic in this or explain why this is a procedure to follow with animals(non-persons). No way of explaining in a principle sense, biological sense, scientific sense. Nothing has been cited as to why. Pro just continues to repeat that this is the procedure . This is the way or the criteria we go by just continuing on claiming these things. Pro stated:Notably, the opponent doesn't actually refute any of the evidence or logic I presented on this point. He attempts to introduce a strawman (people differ from non-human animals) and argue that, rather than the issue at hand. While the opponent may prefer that we only talk about people, that does not make sense in the context of "the natural-ness of homosexuality". Con's Response: Pro simply doesn't understand anything I brought to this argument. Maybe pro is just ignoring the fact that everyone and everything varies by nature. I laid that out in a very simple fashion. Which again,it's not clear how or why Pro has tied one organism to an organism. Namely between people and "animals'. Pro stated: I argued that homosexuality has been prevalent across all cultures at every recorded point in time, thus indicating that it is a natural behavior, as opposed to a nurtured behavior.The opponent argued that it doesn't matter how many people do something that's wrong, implying that "wrong" == "unnatural". I responded with an example of animal behaviors that we might consider "wrong", but that are no doubt natural. Con's Response: This is why I state and pretty much show at this point that comparing different species is a extremely weak argument. We'll refer to people as one species compared to another. Even scientists will report that there is that much DIFFERENCE to be classified into different species on account of genetics being incompatible for reproduction. So for instance, is a person just expected to do everything that is evaluated by the actions of another species? Is the person actions evaluated , judged, critiqued based on what another species does? Would anyone expect to be compared like that? What's supposed to be comparable next, intelligence? Using another species to justify the actions of another species is totally illogical. This was already made clear so text space will be saved. Pro stated:The opponent argued that it doesn't matter how many people do something that's wrong, implying that "wrong" == "unnatural". I responded with an example of animal behaviors that we might consider "wrong", but that are no doubt natural.The opponent seems to have forgotten his argument, as in the previous speech he said that "natural" and "morality" are two separate things. I completely agree -- that was my point. Just because you might few homosexuality as "wrong" doesn't mean it is "unnatural". Con's Response: Does the number of people engaging in a particular action or behavior make that particular action or behavior right or wrong? How do you evaluate or "consider" what's wrong for an 'animal" versus a person ? I went over numerous points about this natural subject. I just ask these questions to see how the logic is being established. Pro:Using genitals incorrectly in my eyes. Con: With genitals,What is biological incompatibility ? Pro Stated: Conclusion: It's not even entirely clear what the opponent is arguing against. At many times, he seems to imply that homosexuality is natural, while implying the opposite at other times. Whatever the case is, I've demonstrated that the opponent's arguments on this topic don't have either the logic or evidence required to stand up to serious rebuttals. Con's Response: So does Pro understand Con's position on this subject or not, that was last mentioned ? Does Pro finally understand? It seems again Pro refuses to believe that there are those homosexuals that have been influenced to be homosexual or heterosexual. So that hasn't been disproven. For the record , Con's side doesn't deny homosexual orientation not ever being natural at all. Pro stated:I've demonstrated that homosexuality occurs very frequently in animals, thus implying that its frequent occurence in humans is equally as natural as its occurrence in, say, frogs. I've also looked at history to note that homosexuals have always existed in humanity, regardless of age or culture. Neither of the opponent's arguments against these points was adequate. So as it stands, homosexuality has been proven to be absolutely natural. Con's Response: No Pro has not proven anything but maybe about what OTHER species do and has failed to tie it in. Basically the argument from Pro is, what's natural for another species is definitely natural for a different one. Even though it's understood that there are different natures among all things. A different nature will bring the same effects as another nature that varies or is different. Pro stated:The opponent presented this idea of "cumulative harm", which is basically explained by the thought experiment: "What if everyone was a homosexual." Con's Response: Clear misunderstanding right from jump street . I will leave it at that than stating is was completely assumptive. Cumulative has also more to do with accumulation with things progressing over time. Pro stated: I demonstrated that this thought experiment was completely incosistent with reality. The opponent's current response seems to indicate that he thinks this is ok because of the "way I worded the resolution". I'm assuming this was some attempt to be clever. Obviously, the term "society" in the resolution refers to actual society. Ie, the real world. The opponent's attempt to bind me to the arcane case in which "everyone is a homosexual" is not justified or helpful. Con's Response: Imagine if it were the reality that there was 100% homosexuality in the world. That would definitely wipe out Pro's position and by knowing that , it's made to believe that something on a large scale is not bad at ALL on a small scale. True, there is a size difference , however the essence or elements of the matter is still the same. Not to be coarse to anyone but a little cancer versus a big cancer is still cancer. I understand that we all would rather have a little illness if we can't be without it completely. At least that's what I hope for all of us. But hey , look to the individuals who never been sick akin to what could be a terminal illness or even a broken bone. Now if the large scale is same as the small scale, these very healthy individuals would have no reservations traded places with the ones with an ailment on an insignificant level.That's what being detailed here, the point is in the principle of the whole thing.But just like the principle and or the foundation of human life reproduction, it's thrown out by Pro it seems or it's marginalized, so is this principle.Pro Stated: What's more, I already demonstrated that even if everyone was homosexual, the human race would not be threatened. (Medical aided reproduction.)The opponent later likens homosexuality to cigarrette smoking. Ie, that only 10% of the population being gay is like smoking for two years, whereas 100% of the population is like smoking for a lifetime. Both are bad.This analogy fails because a) current levels of homosexuality do not harm the population at all (as compared to smoking for two years and b) I've already demonstrated that the human population would not be threatened even if everyone were homosexual. Con's Response: I already validated the situation that the human population is not at great harm for decreasing because of heterosexuality which Pro has supported to be so with the basic reproductive elements such as the sperm and egg. These elements come from the genitals associated with opposite genders. These are the components of heterosexuality working together. It's more than just desire and feeling. That's seen once looking past the face value. So how does correct sexuality justify homosexuality? Again it's the heterosexuality that's keeping all living persons afloat fundamentally. Pro can't see that because of the denial and refusing to accept that. Pro has accepted that cigarettes are harmful but when smoking at a non-cumulative level, Pro still agrees cigarettes are damaging but it's an exact parallel. As long as we have the majority or a good number of years not smoking it's not really a threat to the person's life.Be honest and stay consistent(character limit)