Homosexuality is a natural occurrence and is not significantly harmful to society.

Pro stated:The opponent, at one point, declared that I was "ignoring the evidence [implying that homosexuality as not natural, in some cases]." I responded by pointing out that the opponent had not submitted evidence of any kind, thus showing that I could not have been ignoring anything. The opponent's response basically boils down to this: "Go do your own research."While I certainly have, it should be noted that the whenever a debater makes a claim, it is his responsibility to back up that claim. It is never the responsibility of his opponent to do research for him, nor is it ever the responsibility of the voters to do this research. If the opponent makes a claim, then says evidence supports it -- it is absolutely his obligation to produce this evidence. Failure to do that makes the argument essentially baseless. And seeing as the opponent (again) has failed to produce any evidence, his argument should be considered baseless.The opponent agrees that homosexuality is largely natural, and asks if we can "progress on from here". Absolutely. Voters, please note I have upheld at least the first part of the resolution. Con's Response: Pro's side has not disproved anything of homosexuality being an influence at all. It's not a claim and the pro's side knows it. Well aware of the research out there, but to fit the pro's views they cherry pick and remain very selective of the so called research they have done. Again, there is no debate that research has showed for what appears to be the fact that homosexuality has some natural root to it. That's why I said let's progress on because I don't see how it's debatable any further. Pro stated:Despite the opponent agreeing that homosexuality is natural, he wishes to continue debating the point. This is fine. I claimed that, since homosexuality is an animal behavior, it makes sense to look at all animals when determining if it is natural. The opponent's response argues that I've presented no logic as to "why this is the procedure", despite the fact that the very thing he quoted me on contained the logic behind it. When we are investigating a phenomenon of any sort, we look at the phenomenon over all areas it affects. In other words, if we are studying how gravity works, we do not limit our investigation to Paris or Beijing. Rather, we look at as many areas where gravity exists as we can, so as to better understand its nature. If we were to ignore some areas, we might miss a fundamental portion of what makes gravity "gravity". Con's Response : So it took this amount of time for Pro to give some explanation of this line of reasoning. Finally we are getting somewhere. Still does not change anything about natures that differ. Now the question is, how do you tie one to the other? How do we see what's natural for one thing and not for another? See all that has to be explained. It has not been by the pro side, at least not substantially. Pro stated: Similarly, when we look at the phenomenon of "homosexuality", we should look at the phenomenon in all areas it affects. Since it is a behavior, we should look at the group of all things that exhibit this behavior. As I proved (with evidence) in Round 2, homosexuality is found in many animals, thus meaning that homosexuality is not limited to humans. By only looking at homosexuality in humans, we are limiting the scope of our investigation further than the actual bounds of the phenomenon. Con's Response: So what? What does an "animal"act have to do with a person? Is this monkey see, monkey do? That's good that you don't limit the scope. Always look at things in other perspectives, like from the con's side. But again, the correlation is not strong here. Between two different species it was already demonstrated how we meaning persons do what "animals" don't and vice versa. The foundation is just not verified here . Maybe it just what the pro side believes so maybe it can't be more detailed than that. It would be all different if we were just analyzing persons because there is a stark correlation there. Pro stated:This is bad for the reasons mentioned in the gravity example, so it is best that we indeed extend our investigation of homosexuality to animals as well. And as I've proven, the fact that animals exhibit this behavior with such frequency indicates that it is a natural occurence, since it cannot be argued that man somehow forced 10% of animal species to begin exhibiting homosexual behavior. Con's Response: Who said anything of forcing? It's clear by now we know what natural is. However it becomes a repetitive analysis in this debate of something doing what's in it's nature. What about insects? Is there behavior that has been analyzed there? What about protozoans and microscopic organisms? You might as well look at all. Has there been results from these other organisms to tell us why or about the things we do? Pro Stated:And I realize that humans differ from non-human animals. This does not mean that we cannot make a comparison, given a commonality. It is also scientifically accurate to say that all people differ from one another; you and I are definitively different and unique. That does not mean that, when looking at the height of the average person, you should not include all people in your calculations. Con's Response: Understandable, just that the connection between the two or more subjects is unclear.Pro stated:The opponent references this argument, but continues to argue against the previous point. As such, he has failed to rebut the "culture" argument and it should be flowed to me. Again, the argument is this: Nearly every culture documented across all time has had homosexuality present to a lesser or greater extent. This implies that homosexuality is a natural occurence, as opposed to a nurtured occurrence Con's Response:Not at all proof, but so what? What's the point. All that's being asserted here is pre-suppositional views of what it looks like or maybe abducted reasoning. Pro Stated:The opponent hasn't brought up anything new here. He is still arguing that "in an imaginary world in which everyone is homosexual, homosexuality would harm society". Con's Response:Pro wants it to be imaginary due to it not looking good for pro's position which was admitted in regards to that population factor. Imaginary hints or is associated with something false. But when population and reproduction was mentioned, it's very real that heterosexuality sustains us. That's very real and very factual indeed. See we are not just supposing , theorizing , hypothesizing , we are looking at things in full picture. In principle , in full value , in full or unlimited scope like Pro said. Deducting, deducing, concluding based from facts what happens as a thing accumulates. Just like the cigarette analogy, Pro sees the small picture but , it's near impossible to get the eyes open wide enough to see the big picture. Now of course as of now heterosexual behavior dominates the planet so that the latter doesn't occur. But that's no kudos to homosexuality because that's not sustaining us. Those points go to appropriate heterosexual behavior. So either way it's because of correct sexuality (heterosexuality) that flourishes persons to keep this so called "imaginary world" around which is a plus. Also it's shown what would happen when heterosexuality is not kept in the forefront. So what happens is , the facts get marginalized, they are called fictitious , imaginary to evade what's clearly true and irrefutable. It's admitted and agreed from both sides through these rounds that mankind will not thrive off of non-heterosexuality/surrogacy/insemination etc, all in one classification . Then the pro's side changes their view of what's seen as a problem to be a solution. Cutting down the population, reducing, cutting off lives even if it includes me and you is a solution to a problem. Pro Stated: Not only does this analysis exist outside of the society we live in; I've already addressed this edge case. Even if everyone was homosexual, society would not be harmed. (Modern Medicine and Fertilization Argument)Given that no amount of homosexuality is harmful to society for the medical reasons above, it cannot be said that a "small amount of homosexuality" is like "a small amount of cancer", or that it represents a small harm that is just not yet apparent due to its small size. Con's Response: Long story short, heterosexuality is the key to human life survival. Again please, be honest, when something is harmful , is it harmful with no respect to the amount? Is cancer cancer with no respect to the amount of cancerous cells? Are you sure your not just saying what we can live with? Is it really not bad or damaging or are we saying we can live with a minimum or small amount of damage? See that's the point logically. We have to realize what the situation truly is for what it is. We are just deciding to tolerate minimal damage over great damage to our health or whatever the case is. But the confusion comes in when we start saying minimal damage is not damage at all. Not apparent has nothing do with it actually existing or not. We're just talking about what we can see or be aware of when something is apparent or not. But if the doctor says this is only curable at the early stages which is not apparent but detected by thorough examination and medical technology , I hope we take action. See this is just another excuse to try and justify something that has insignificant harm. See how this works in principle?That's why it was pointed out early on, that due to the very definition of harm itself, it's contradicting when your argument or feelings are not to support harm in one degree but tolerate it in another. If harm means bad at any rate , how is it acceptable and satisfactory at all? It's what your willing to tolerate and be complacent with.So it's Pro as well as many others are trying to convince indirectly that a subject can very well be no good but accept it with little agony.