Being gay is not a choice.

Clarifications: Perfect. Con admits that he simply cannot win this debate if homosexuality is defined properly. In other words, Con must use a faulty definition in order to win this debate... because he can't support his case any other way. He says he'd agree with me if my proper definition is used, but that's only because I have proven him to be 100% wrong on this topic in general. You'll note that this debate only came into fruition because I disagreed with his position on the subject in another debate and challenged him on it; as such he chose a definition of homosexuality from Wikipedia (lol) that he thinks makes it impossible for Pro to win. I maintain that the definitions should be discussed - especially on this topic - since no mention was made in R1 that the definition HAD to be accepted, and it's understood in every debate that people have different ways of defining things. For instance, in a debate about free will, you'll see that Pro presents one definition of free will and then Con presents another [1]. This clarification is most certainly allowed and encouraged so long as it's done in the first round, and the instigator makes no rule against it (which you'll notice that Con did not). The only way my definition should not be used is if Con argues that my definition is incorrect. However, because my definition is the correct medical definition, then it should be upheld. Again, I'll let the audience decide what source they think is more valid - the medical community, or Wikipedia. Moving on, we'll discuss the word "homosexual" since that's what this debate is actually about - being gay. You'll note that Con never once defined gay or homosexual ~ just homosexuality. As such, my explanation of homosexual should stand. I have described it as being one that possesses the qualities of homosexuality. That includes gay genes, biological factors and all other sexual instincts, attractions or behavior towards another of the same sex or gender. Rebuttal: 2. Suicide Con says that my argument here completely rests on my definition; however, once again that is completely wrong. I have proven and even quoted doctor/scientists who explain that sexual identity is achieved in INFANCY which Con originally said was impossible before I proved him wrong. So, since I was right about that point and Con completely dropped that argument in the last round, then I am right in saying that an infant does not have the mental or physical capacity for suicide and my point stands. Also, Con says I dropped his argument "As the parents make the choice to allow for the child to exist, the child's being gay is still a choice." I didn't drop it -- I just proved how it was impossible, so I thought Con would understand that I already negated this absolutely ridiculous position. The resolution implies that BEING gay is a choice, NOT *raising a gay child* is a choice. So, even the parents choose to raise a gay child, the child does not have a choice and therefore this point actually supports my position rather than Con's. 3. Seclusion Con writes, "If one has never known anybody else in his or her entire life, then they would not even understand sexuality at all." I can't even begin to describe how non-sensical this argument is. First of all, if one lived in seclusion their entire life since birth, then it wouldn't be their choice but their parents (or some other entities) choice. Therefore this weak argument has already been negated. However, you'll notice that Con dropped every single one of my other points from the last round regarding this horrible contention. In R2 I pointed out why this premise made no sense. Con absolutely 100% dropped my arguments about the genetic and biological factors that go into determining one's sexuality. Of course this was after he said that there was no link, and I proved him wrong just as I have with every other point that he's made. Nevertheless, let me reiterate how asinine this argument really is. Not to mention that it's completely untrue! Even if one had lived in complete seclusion from other people, there's no telling that they'd be completely secluded from sex. Moreover, Con never pointed out until the last round that the person would have had to be secluded since birth. As we all know, introducing new arguments in the final round is bad conduct and against debating paradigms. However, that's irrelevant because it's not even possible. For that to happen, it would have been at the hand of the infant's care taker and therefore not their choice. This point is void. 4. Sedation Con completely ignores all arguments related to biology because he cannot argue them. Arguments: 1. Rape Here we have a most interesting argument. Con insists that "Rare examples are not enough to affirm a resolution" yet sees no problem with using rare examples to negate a resolution. For instance, expecting that one remain secluded from infancy --> forever is absurd. Similarly, committing suicide is just as ridiculous. And furthermore, a resolution without a doubt can be proven by using a rare example [2]. Nevertheless, you'll notice that Con never disputed my example of rape - he just pointed out that rape was rare. Just because something is rare doesn't mean that it can't be used as evidence. For instance, if I say "Pitching a perfect game is possible" and point out that it's been done before -- in far less than 3% of games might I add -- then of course that evidence can be used to support the resolution despite how rare it is. Also, Con's statistic is also skewed; I pointed out in the last round that the stats regarding sexual abuse are more around the area of 15% of people per year. Nevertheless, I have won this point using Con's own very definition and tactics. If his definition of homosexuality includes those who engage in homosexual behavior, then surely those who are raped fall within the category of gay. This includes all of the men who are raped in prison, or boys who were subjected to sexual abuse at the hand of others or priests. These people have been 'gay' and it was not their choice. Moreover, this example most definitely applies because Con's own definition uses the word "situationally" which clearly an act of rape is. 2. Being Once again, Con completely dropped the contentions here because he can't argue them. Counter-Examples: Extend my arguments. Conclusion: This entire debate is based on Con's inability to defend the position that one can choose their sexuality. Because he obviously cannot prove that one chooses to be gay -- and we all know what that statement really implies -- he has relied on (a) semantics and (b) a faulty definition. By his own admission, Con has completely neglected the TRUE definition of homosexuality in favor of one that suits his position. That is not an example of winning a debate ~ it is an example of manipulation. Listing suicide as an alternative to accepting one's sexual identity is clearly a semantics argument; it's a shame that Con can't win a debate the real way (via actual arguments with proper definitions). I have explained why my definition should prevail in this debate. You'll also notice that I've proven how Con is wrong even using his own faulty definition. To re-cap, one is born gay (WITH A GAY GENE) -- they just haven't realized yet that they are gay. There is no "alcoholic gene" so Con's example fails. One might be genetically inclined towards addiction; however, can avoid it. You cannot avoid your sexuality. Again, even if one commits suicide, they were gay before committing suicide. The same logic applies to sedation or seclusion, though it's much easier to see how Con's seclusion argument is horrible; life-long seclusion would not be the individual's choice. Resolution affirmed. [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.debate.org...