Society's Acceptance of Homosexuality is a Slippery Slope

I am going to completely throw out the previous structure of the debate, as it has just become repetitive and we haven't gone anywhere with it. Concerning logical fallacies coming into play with the slippery slope, it is important to remember this entire debate is based around multiple fallacies. This is getting repetitive and annoying that my opponent still is having a hard time understanding the problem with his arguments, to the point where he is repeating them ad naseum without even trying to understand what I am saying" So here is the best way I can some up the majority of my argument. My opponent says he is trying to prove how in context, this type of slippery slope is not a fallacy. It is entirely a fallacy however because he has refused to acknowledge and prove how homosexuality leads to this massive chain of events, and how heterosexuality differs so that it doesn"t. There is literally no link between the perceived problem, and the outlandish conclusion, which for the umpteenth time, makes this debate unbearably pointless. The icing on the cake, is that he doesn"t go to explain how these are actual problems, just says that they will happen as a result of "A" without providing evidence to support this BOP, or even attempting to give a valid reason as to how "A" concludes to "B-D". So due to the repetitive nature this debate has taken, I am going to accept my opponents offer. "Tell me exactly what questions, what challenges you raised, that I haven't answered. Tell me plainly so I can give you an answer. I guarantee that I can give you some kind of response, hopefully a decent one, if I know what it is you're looking for." For the rest of this round, I am going to ask my opponent direct questions, that I hope he can answer directly in the final round of this debate. Maybe then we can start establishing some effective conclusions about this resolution. Question 1: In what way do you perceive Homosexuality leads to incestual relationships? Question 2: Why does heterosexuality not lead to incestual relationships? Question 3: Why is incestual relationships a problem? Question 4: How did you come to the conclusion that an animal "not running away" means the animal gives consent to a human? Do you have statistics and evidence that demonstrates an animal"s psychological reactance and behaviors? Question 5: In what way do you perceive Homosexuality leads to bestiality? Question 6: Why does heterosexuality not lead to bestiality? Question 7: Is homosexuality to you 100% about sex, is it about human romance? Question 8: In what ways does bestiality have anything to do with human romance? Question 9: In the last round, you said this a few times: If you dismiss this argument, you also dismiss this argument from pro-gay usage. Can you explain your thought process on why you feel it is necessary to argue other people"s arguments rather than the 2 clear contentions I laid out in Round 1? Question 10: Do you find it contradictory at all that all of your arguments can be re-directed back to heterosexuality? If not can you explain in detail how they are not? Question 11: In what way do you perceive homosexuality leads to pedophilia? Question 12: Why does heterosexuality not lead to pedophilia? Question 13: In your last round you said this "gayness isn't actually natural in humans". Can you provide me the source of where you got this information? Question 14: In your last round you said this "the animal smoochers and the sister smoochers and the 40 year olds with the 15 year old girlfriends are inspired to fight for their "rights" by the homosexuals" Can you provide me with the source of where you got this information? Now I will address other comments made by my opponent: "However, do you not also have a responsibility to prove me wrong? Pretty much all you've done is say I have no proof." Everything you are arguing requires proof before I can even refute it. You have not given me a single shred of it, so how can I even begin arguing it? The resolution YOU started, requires substantiating so the opposition can understand, and debate it properly. But not only have you not provided evidence for your case, you have not given any impacts for why each contention is important (or even relevant in this case). Based on how this debate has been going so far for 4 rounds, I do not expect a decrease in ignorance any time soon, but I sincerely hope you can muster some humility up for Round 5 at least. "You have never given I response to my argument about the line, the line that must not be crossed otherwise the depravity will get worse and worse." What is this line, and when was it drawn? You have not proven to me that this line even exists, and how it will be crossed. I don"t know how many time I can re-word the same statement before you understand how weak your "arguments" *cough* assertions *cough* are. So now we have 1 round left, and nothing productive has been established. This last round is make or break for my opponent. This is his last chance to decide whether he wants to engage in debate, or willingly argue fallacies based on made up evidence. I sincerely hope that Pro can finally understand where the problem in this debate has been since Round Back to you.