Homosexuals are delusional

The opponent has elected to use a semantics based argument to prove his point. In short, he is saying that "homosexuals" is plural in the thesis statement, therefore he only needs to show that at least two homosexuals are delusional in order to win. I'll copy and paste my argument regarding the resolutional analysis for the ease of the reader. "The opponent makes a statement in the form "X are T". We'll first look at similar statements using a different X and T:1. Cows are herbivores. 2. Stars are hot. 3. Buses are long. . .. Each of these statements is making a claim about the their subject. For instance, the first statement is saying that cows have the attribute of being herbivores. To assume that this is only referring to a limited number of cows or some portion of cows is invalid, as the statement clearly refers to 'cows' as a group. When making statements of this form, the implication is that the characteristic T applies that the group X. So when my opponent make the claim that homosexuals are delusional, he is saying that the characteristic of being delusional applies to the group "homosexuals". He is making an objective statement about a characteristic applying to an entire group. In order to falsify this statement, one merely has to show that at least one member of this group X does not have the characteristic T. By showing that the opponent's delusions do not apply to myself, I have falsified the statement that homosexuals are delusional. Note: I have not falsified the statement "some homosexuals are delusional", just the former. Again, this is because 'homosexuals' refers to the group homosexuals -- which includes all homosexuals. Only by adding the term "some" can you refer to a portion of homosexuals. Vote Con on this issue alone. The fact that the opponent may have 'intended' to use the word 'some' does not excuse the fact that he did not. Additionally, note that he referred to "gays" multiple times throughout his argument, never once saying "some gays". He had multiple opportunities to clarify that he was referring to a portion of the homosexual population, and not the whole as his statement of the form "X are T" directly implies. It's clear I was not using a straw man (arguing against a point the opponent didn't make), but rather I argued against what the opponent actually said, regardless of his intent. "To reiterate, it is clear that the opponent is making a categorical charactertistic statement about homosexuals. By the very definition of categorical assertions, the claim implies that the characteristic applies to the entire category. Even if one does not believe that the categorical claim is not falsified by one homosexual counter-example (which I presented in R1 of the linked debate), it is at least clear that the categorical statement would apply to the majority of gays. So the opponent's claim that he only has to show 2+ gays delusional in order to prove that homosexuals are delusional is logically bankrupt. It twists the topic into something that is not even a debateable issue, as it is obvious that at least 2 gays are delusional, just as at least 2 african americans, 2 steel welders, 2 priests, 2 whatever are also delusional. Interpretting the topic as the opponent is implying destroys any meaning that it has. ------------------------As for the issues I spoke about in my previous round that actually had content (see linked debate R2), my opponent did not address these. I went through each of my opponent's 7 delusions and demonstrated why these do not apply to the majority of homosexuals, thus showing that the majority of homosexuals are not delusional. The fact that the opponent did not address these, instead attempting to use a semantic trick-play implies that he does not have an adequate response to my arguments. Remember, silence is compliance, so he has implicitly accepted my linked R2 arguments. In light of this, it is extra clear that I have won this debate. ConclusionI have demonstrated that the opponent's claim makes a categorical characteristic statement about homosexuals, specifically that everyone in the category of "homosexual" is delusional. I have disproved this through counterexample. Beyond that, I elected to additionally show that the majority of gays also do not adhere to the opponent's stated delusions, further strengthening my position. I have additionally shown that the opponent's previous round suggestion that "homosexuals", in the context of this deate, means "more than one" is intellectually bankrupt and leads to a topic that has no debatability. Therefore, it should not be accepted.