Being gay is not a choice.

My opponent claims that her own definition fits the debate more than the definition that I already established in Round 1, mostly by comparing the sources of the two definitions. She accuses of the debate being skewed in my direction by my own definition. However, the debate would be skewed in my opponent's favor if we choose her own definition. If my opponent did not like the definition that I initially chose, and felt that a debate using such a definition would be unfair, then she should have stated such in the Comments section. My opponent had the complete freedom to not accept this debate if she felt that the definition were unfair. However, if my opponent's definition is allowed to prevail, then I have no freedom whatsoever to back out of an unfair debate. As my debate with crackofdawn_jr already outlined, this freedom to back out is what already gives the Contender an equal ability to control the definition. However, if the Contender can accept a debate, then pick any definition whatsoever, no matter how biased it may be, then the Instigator is no longer debating the debate that he or she already prepared. That would be like writing and signing a contract, then passing it over to the other person, then watching as they rewrite the definitions for every single word so that you'll end up in massive debt to them and sign the contract. That hardly sounds fair. The only way for the signing of the contract to be completely fair for both parties is if after one person writes, defines, and signs the contract, the second person can either sign or try to negotiate the contract. After signing, it's too late, unless the original writer of the contract chooses allow it, which does not apply to this case in the slightest. Now, if we were to go with my opponent's definition, that would be completely unfair. I actually agree with the PRO position given PRO's definition. I am PRO with my opponent's definition, but CON with my own definition. I wished to debate as CON under my own definition, and my opponent has no right to force me to take a completely different side just because she doesn't feel my source to be adequate. The reason I chose the source I did was because it had the definition that I wished to debate with. The alternative to my posting a definition would be renaming the resolution to "Having the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex is not a mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action." It would be the only way to debate what I want to debate, and it can't even fit in the topic box. Essentially, when one reads the resolution, and the Instigator has already defined words in the resolution, the resolution should be treated with the defined words substituted out by their respective definitions, so that the topic is short and succint, while still being comprehendible. This is all outlined even more thoroughly in this debate of mine: http://www.debate.org... My opponent's second statement is that people who are inclined to possess feelings of homosexuality are, by my definition, homosexual. However, one reading the definition can easily find this to be false. Having an attraction is different from being inclined to pontentially have attractions. That would be like calling everybody alcoholics because their brains are wired to be potential alcoholics, even if they've never tasted alcoholic beverages. Therefore, my opponent's accusation is wrong. All of my opponent's arguments using her own definition are completely irrelevant to this debate, as I have already thoroughly outlined above. 2-. Suicide My opponent's arguments completely rely on her own definition, and are therefore void. My opponent ignored my sentence from Round 2, "Additionally, the gayness of infants is still a choice, but in this case, it would be the choice of the parents. The parents make the conscious decision to raise the child." As the parents make the choice to allow for the child to exist, the child's being gay is still a choice. This is a dropped argument, and therefore conceded. 3-. Seclusion If one has never known anybody else in his or her entire life, then they would not even understand sexuality at all. 4-. Sedation All references to genetics and biology are void, as detailed above. The rape case, as I'll more clearly address below, is not nearly enough to affirm a resolution. 1+. Rape My opponent misrepresents what I said. Rare examples are not enough to affirm a resolution. If one said, "Rectangles are rhombuses," the response would be, "That only applies in the case of squares." Squares being both rectangles and rhombuses is not enough to affirm "Rectangles are rhombuses." Similarly, just because some situations of being gay may be without choice, doesn't mean that the all-encompassing "Being gay is not a choice" is affirmed. Rare examples can be used as evidence, but only as evidence. Conclusions cannot draw only from rare examples, as outlined in the squares scenario. As for the rarity of rape, I never said it was extremely rare. I merely said that it was rare. 3% seems fairly rare to me. 2+. Being This contention completely relies on CON's skewed, un-consented to definition. Ignore it. Counter-Examples: False. The fact is that counterexamples disprove conjectures. Given the conjecture of being gay not being a choice, and the counterexample of being gay sometimes being a choice, the conjecture is inherently false. Additionally, my situations are not rare at all. Almost anybody can make the choice of suicide. Conclusion Analysis: Most of my opponent's conclusion relies on the definition not pertaining to this debate. As for the random throw-in of sedated people still having feelings, one can simply be sedated to a state of complete unconsciousness [1], in which case, feelings don't exist. My opponent argues that a person being gay at any moment negates the resolution. However, assuming that being gay for a few seconds is not a choice, after having one opportunity to suicide, a person has chosen to be gay rather than dead. This choice, however, lasts eternally [2], even after the suicide, in which case one has chosen death over being gay. If one measures the amount of time each occassion lasts, one realizes that there are more instances of gayness being a chose than not, which would actually negate the resolution. Conclusion: My opponent's definition cannot be accepted for any reason by the numerous reasons I have outlined above. Being gay is first a choice made by the parents (conceded), but later becomes a choice to eventually be taken by the homosexual himself. He can choose to suicide, and after perhaps a few minutes of lack of choice, a homosexual's homosexuality is a choice, as opposed to death. Therefore, at least for the most part, being gay is a choice. The resolution is negated in numerous ways. Vote CON. 1. http://www.asahq.org... 2. http://www.suicide.org... Note that most of CON's sources are entirely irrelevant to this debate, concerning irrelevant genetics and biology not to be debated here.