Homosexuality Is Immoral!

First, my opponent for the third time (!) changed his numbering system. However, no matter how confusing he makes the flow, it is still very clear that his claims are unjustified (and sometimes self-refuting). Moreover, disorganization hurts him alone, since he has the Burden of Proof (BoP). Pro dropped that he is telling old people, disabled people, homosexual people, and my parents that they can't have sex unless it is for the purpose of having a child. He is states that merely being sexually attracted to someone who won"t provide a child is unnatural and therefore immoral. Either nearly every Homo sapien and many nonhuman animal are acting "unnaturally," or Pro has a very mixed up idea of "natural." It seems contradictory to claim that nature itself is "unnatural." I'm quite sure that my, my parents', and the voters' parents' sexual activities/thoughts are none of Pro's business. Sources: I asked for four things regarding Pro's sources, and he failed on all counts: 1) Write the arguments for the voters to see. My opponent argues that he cannot write full arguments because he doesn't have space, and that's why he is using the books in place of his arguments. By referencing arguments that are only listed outside of the debate space, he is breaking the character limit rules. He admits that summarizing his arguments would be impossible with the character limitations; if that were the case, then he deliberately used long books to make arguments outside of the debate round, which is against the rules and also unfair to me, since I had to struggle to fit all my arguments in the allotted space. Furthermore, Debate.org debates are not lists of books. My opponent failed to show WHY his propositions are correct, apparently in the hopes that his books will debate for him. Thankfully, voters know that this is not how debates work; although sources are good for supporting arguments, DEBATERS STILL HAVE TO WRITE THEIR ARGUMENTS. Pro uses Wikipedia to replace some of his books. Why, then, did Pro fail to provide summaries? 2) Make it so that voters don"t have to read hundreds of pages to find Pro's arguments Pro says things like: "Read page 46 onwards." I"ve calculated the number of pages voters need to read to find the unspecified arguments to be STILL well over 500 pages. The sources are impossible to cross-reference, rendering them useless. 3) Give links so voters don't need to buy the books. Pro did not offer a single link to a single book. This means that the voter and I would need to spend $9+$44+$15+$7+$6+$10+$20+$15=$126 on books just to TRY to FIND the arguments (not including shipping). 4) Give page numbers. As I said before, Pro gives the names of full chapters, full books, and full sections leading to many HUNDREDS of pages. These sources are completely useless. Because this is the last round, it is too late for my opponent to bring up new arguments, or for me to respond. Theology: Pro is still guilty of a moving target violation for dropping religious arguments in Round 2 and then picking them back up again in the subsequent rounds. Dropping arguments and then picking them back up makes his case hard to follow and is bad for the education and fairness of debate. Although still claims that he is not arguing from the perspective of Christianity, but he says he is taking the perspective of Leibniz. Leibniz was an advocate for Christianity, and his arguments were religiously-based. Pro talks about an "infinitely just and good" singular God who is absolutely opposed to "the Devil," adultery, and "sin," which indicates that he references the Judeo-Christian tradition. Additionally, voters are unbiased"they don"t vote according to their religion. Also, and I hate to bring up the obvious, adultery also causes childbirth. Thus, Pro's arguments on sin and reproduction contradict. Pro drops that he can't prove the existence of God, the Devil, or "sin," or God's creating lust, or God's not liking lust. Therefore, Pro's "theological arguments" are a complete flop. 3. My opponent fails to say why he knows what an infinitely just Being would do. More likely, however, my opponent is making a claim he can't back up. The entire theological argument flops again. 4. My opponent claimed that I gave no proof that God made homosexuality. I simply followed Pro's logic and replaced general "lust" with "homosexual lust." If I failed to meet my burden of proof, then my opponent did as well, and he subsequently loses. The syllogisms: 5. [1.1] Pro claims that lust for reproduction is "rational" from the evolutionary perspective because it causes reproduction. He then claims that since "rational" can mean "moral," then lust for reproduction is moral. He uses two different meanings of "rational" and "justified:" the evolutionary justified and the social-moral justified. Being helpful for evolutionary reproduction is not "justified" in the same way that one"s actions are morally justified. Because these terms look/sound the same but have different meanings (homonym), Pro's syllogism flops, and therefore his entire case (which relies on it) flops. 6. [1.2a] My opponent says that good things tend to be just and just things tend to be good; however, even if my opponent is right, that does not mean that they are the same thing, and it definitely does NOT mean that an infinitely just thing is also infinitely good (or vice versa). He also gives no reason why God is infinitely just. 7. [1.2b] My opponent again uses two meanings for the same word, this time "good." First he says that reproduction creates a "positive result" in evolutionary terms. 1) There is no such things as positive evolution: Only evolution. Evolution is simply a depiction of who lives or dies. It doesn't have an opinion. 2) My opponent claims that this "positivity" (human species survives longer, regardless of cruel acts) is the same are moral good, which is false. Whereas the former includes murder and rape, the latter rejects them. For these two reasons, my opponent's entire argument flops. 8. Even when including Pro"s "hidden premise" (not a real thing), 1.2(c) is still not a valid syllogism. My opponent's entire case relies on this syllogism, and therefore his entire case flops. 9. I use Pro's exact logic against him in [kbub1.2.1a-c2]. This shows how, according to Pro's own logic, homosexuality is moral. This is absolutely clear and possibly my strongest argument. The entire reason why Pro claims that lust is only for reproduction is that evolution would take it away if it wasn't necessary for survival. By that same logic, homosexuality and sex for pleasure must be necessary for survival. Pro claims that actually, this isn't the case because sex for pleasure isn't an instinct. However, the syllogism said nothing about instinct; it wasn't involved in that step. Secondly, I am talking about lust, which he says over and over again is an instinct. Pro argues that lust without childbearing isn't rational, but it certainly is an instinct. No matter how you look at it, my opponent has already lost this debate. 10. My opponent's rebuttal makes no sense. He argues that lust is only natural if used for reproduction, which he knows by 1.2.1a-c. I use that same logic to disprove his argument. Pro uses the conclusion to try to validate the premise, which is bad logic. 11 [1 [7]]. I simply think that the highest good for some is not the same for others. My opponent calls all people who want to have sex but not have kids immoral. Obviously, this would only be beneficial to those who aren't considered immoral. My opponent's argument fails to show even an ounce of creating good for anyone, especially old people, disabled people, and homosexual people. 12 [1 [7]]. I have clearly shown how social Darwinism is evil. It is one of the major roots of racism, imperialism, slavery, and was even used to justify the Holocaust. My opponent argues that evolution applies to morality, which IS social Darwinism, and is a highly problematic ideology. Pro fails to refute all links and harms, and thus his argument flops. 13. (3.[6]). I have shown (with well over 10 un-refuted scientific journal articles) that a mixture of genes, hormones, fetus conditions, and certain unknown factors create sexual orientation. I show that there is no evidence of "choice" affecting it at all. Even though I provided all of this evidence, the BoP is on my opponent to show that homosexuality is a choice; however, he fails to do so, and thus his entire argument flops. 14. [4 [5]] Pro has used this point to ramble on about how science doesn't confirm anything. However, it is my opponent's BoP to show that homosexuality is harmful to kin genetic selection, and not having a scrap of scientific evidence hurts his case. I, however, do provide evidence that homosexuality does foster improved kin selection. 15. [4 [5]] My source is written by the American Psychological Association itself--you know, the makers of the DSM-V--the association including basically all mainstream psychology. Yes, it is in Q&A format, but that doesn't make it less trustworthy. My opponent, however, gave no evidence. 16. [5 [3]] My opponent DROPPED AGAIN that sex has health benefits aside from making babies. Thus, I show that there are benefits of "lust" besides childbearing. My opponent's entire argument relies on direct reproduction being the only reason for lust [1.2c]; because this has been refuted and my opponent failed to answer this refutation twice, his entire case flops. 17. [7, [1]] My opponent drops that his own logic shows that homosexual persons being made to have sex with the opposite gender/sex is like having a human be made to eat poop. 18. Pro's claim contributes to anti-queer stigma, which kills: http://tinyurl.com... Thus, his arguments are actually (and ironically) immoral, and should therefore be rejected. Grammar: We both made several mistakes, so grammar seems to be tied.