We should go to the park together

"Take for instance the fact that Pro has repeatedly referred to my husband, even though he may be wrong and I might have a wife. More about that later." A female, female, bronto 3-some would be a nontypical occurence for Con. Or would it? If it is typical Con would be in her comfort zone. If this is not typical for Con, she would have a fun and exciting adventure. -- Con: "Rape is also driven by biological impulse, yet it requires force which is why it is illegal and immoral." Con has given a false assessment of a chosen subjective morality. In Islam, raping infidels is moral in the cause of humiliating the infidel/enemies of Allah(google it), thus Con is arbitrarily referencing "Christian morality". Atheism cannot claim morality because all action is biological, and simply neutral acts of survival of the fittest. -- Con: "Similarly, attending the park with Pro would require force." Maybe not. If alcohol or drugs was involved, Con might willingly go. -- Con: "especially considering the fact that I am a lesbian." I like Lesbians...with whipped cream. Lesbianism is not restrained simply to girl on girl, and usually involves some sense of "masculinity", like another male, or a vibrater or dildo. A lesbian can also be bisexual. Within the liberal construct of excepting others as they are, Con should really love me as I am, be politically correct towards my sexuality, and in the interest of diversity, equality, and multiculturism, go to the park with me. -- Con: When Pro suggests that tension between us might turn into sexual tension, it makes me feel uncomfortable." Sexual tension is uncomfortable, hence the name. This is a sign that Con sees me as a "sexual threat". Why? Because Con wonders if I could scratch that itch in a way her partner cannot. This is exampled by the concept that I know how to work a vibrater and my unit to a squirting climax and am actually trained in this technique. You are not about to pee Con. That is something else you are feeling. Wink wink. Nod nod. -- Con: "Considering I usually have at least one type of weapon on me." But she obviously would not use it on someone who is in the actionary procedure of making her squirt. Otherwise she is insane, and her argument is invalid by guilt of insanity. -- Con: "By hanging out with Pro." This is a false assessment because? No one does not have fun with me in real life, orgasm is normal, and bronto is endowed like the stereotypical mule. I actually had a lesbian work under me a few years back. Her and her partner had 7 different "exchanges". Why? I gave equal attention to the masculine and the feminine partners. She knew I was cool, would not judge, and was fun to drink with, among other things, but I plead the fifth. -- Con: "Yet I have absolutely and unabashedly have no desire to have sex with Pro whatsoever." Con is guessing. I could have been a female to Con's prior knowledge in other rounds. I also could be a male who is rather "pretty" or even a transgender or fits some unknown biological variable in Con's sexuality that she is not even aware of. Con in theory could look at me, see something she has never seen before, and say, "I don't know exactly what I am looking at, but I like it and want to partake of this new pie." -- Con: "Please extend my arguments about "stranger danger" in the digital world; an argument which my opponent has dropped." Con likes danger and has morbid curiosity. If it were not true, Con would not be here in the midst of this debate. Con came into the debate knowing I am the biggest troll on the forum, and conciously chose to sniff me out. -- Con: "However I have proven that I don't like men (sexually) at all." But it is a well known fact that lesbian couples tend to be 2 different "types", thus her partner might want a piece of me. Thus, due to wanting to please her mate, Con is obligated to wrap me in a bow and see if her partner is inteterested sober, then find out if she is interested intoxicated, to fulfill Con's partners' needs. -- Con: "hanging out with a man in particular is not necessarily exciting or enticing to me." I could be bisexual or a female with a large vibrater or dildo. I could be an unknown phenomenon as well. If Con's partner is a compliment to her, as in "opposites attract", her partner very likely would be interested with a bronto 5000 deluxe with a cherry on top sundae. And...if Con truely cares for her partner, she should want to find any unorthodxed way possible to please her partner. Bronto makes a great Christmas gift. Con could wrap me up in a box. When Con's partner sees me burst out like an alien from the box, my how surprised she would be! "My very own "temporary bronto!" she would squeal. Because of this Con becomes godlike. She is the best partner in the world. A final point. Con could claim a trophy. She would be the one who satisfied and conquered the biggest and most feared troll on debate.org, a monumental feat. Con would kill many, many birds with one stone. She would satisfy her lovers' side needs, punish bronto in fetish style, get a monumental victory in dominating bronto, and she herself might be pleased "deeply". What's to lose? Just a few fluids. I like fluids. Con likes fluids. It would be illogical for Con to deny herself of possibly the greatest sexual encounter of her or her partners' lives, or maybe both. And Con would have a lifetime variable she could always squeeze into the equation when the sex got boring to spice things up, and it would be perfect because bronto would satisfy them and himself, then disappear into the night.