Question: Is Sexual Orientation Predetermined at Birth?

There is no such thing as being inherently homosexual at birth!
Moreover, a report in the Chicago Sun-Times excludes "ALL" homosexual individuals and employs the term "SOME," which overlooks numerous exempt homosexuals without a scientific, genetic, or biological explanation for their sexual orientation. I have additional research to support my argument, as even though the specific page uses generalizing terms, others do not. A review of current research indicates that there is no evidence to support a social cause for homosexuality [1]. There are numerous studies, both involving animals and humans, demonstrating the causal relationship between pre-natal testosterone and "defeminization" during a critical stage. [2] Since sexual differentiation of the brain begins in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be independently influenced, which can lead to transsexuality. This also means that in cases of ambiguous sex at birth, the level of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the level of masculinization of the brain. There is no evidence that the social environment after birth affects gender identity or sexual orientation. There is more evidence that a person's orientation occurs before birth than after. Additionally, another study confirms that sexual orientation is uncontrollable, akin to being left-handed. Historically, being left-handed was viewed as evil, but now we know that is not true. The developing male fetus receives insufficient testosterone, leading to the sexual orientation. [3] In 1972, Dr. Ward conducted a study finding that androstendione in male pregnancies would prevent the hypothalamus from developing into a healthy male brain. [4] The brain makes its gender commitment very early in development and, once committed to either male or female, cannot change. These studies and examples prove that sexual orientation is indeed ingrained within a person before birth. "Secondly, you specifically stated verbatim that 'No families or ancestors were GAY because IT WAS NOT COMMON.' I would like to clarify that this was taken out of context, as I did conclude by saying that it was not common for people to disclose if they were homosexuals because it was inherently disapproved of. I did not intend for my point to be misconstrued, that it was uncommon in the sense that people were not. I meant it was uncommon because of societal norms, not something someone would willingly admit. "Being GAY is nothing more than an example of 'HERD BEHAVIOR,' it is not genetic, biological, psychological, or hereditary. As society evolved from traditional values and conservative traditions

Buy it's NOT ok to be gay, and this is the heart of the matter. The 20 year-old male who "comes-out" dramatically increases chances of getting HIV. The CDC tells us 75% of all new HIV cases are gay males. How can you possibly say "it's ok to be gay" with stats like that staring you in the face? First off, HIV happens when you engage in risky sexual behavior. One can avoid HIV by being safe gay or not. Also, taking the change of getting AIDS is worth the love you find in a relationship with someone you are attracted to. If there was a 1 in 20 chance that I would get AIDS from a relationship with a woman, I would still do it because I would never find satisfaction with a man and celibacy is no way to life. The same goes for gays. Also a minority of gays have HIV. Your "born this way" theory was discredited ages ago. The American Psychological Association doesn't support it and never has. And your "Gays are sexually attracted to the opposite sex and cannot choose to be attracted differently" is yet more LGBT junk science not supported by a scintilla of evidence. I've read the scientific literature. You clearly haven't. No sources: check. No evidence: check. Only claims: check. I already showed that sexual attraction is not chosen. If it was, then you could choose to like someone of the same sex if you are strait. Gays are sexually attracted to the same sex by their own self-report. If you doubt me, then go ask a gay person. Ask him if he is sexually attracted to women. He will likely say no. Take a look at this link below. It has stories of gays and their description of their attraction. http://www.experienceproject.com... Here is one such story: I always felt like I was different. When all the other boys started noticing girls I was still playing my video games - I just didn't know what was so special about them. As the time went on I realized that the ones I like aren't girls - but boys. I though at first that it was just a phase, that perhaps every boy feels like that at one time. I even tried to get myself to like girls. All to no avail. I admitted it to myself when I was 16. I knew about then that what I feel like can't be changed - that it's there to stay forever. And I got scared. In my country being gay is not only sin, if you're gay you're considered sub-human. No possible penance. I was once told that the only way to "heal" a homosexual is with a bullet through the head. So that's why I'm hiding it. No one would understand. Not my family or people I go to school with. I dread what would happen if anyone found out. It is really revolting how some of us treat people who are different like trash just because they are different. Gays are actually more miserable married than unmarried. Most gays want nothing to do with same-sex. In Massachusetts 10 years after same sex marriage less than 5% of gay males are married. Why do you think that is? What do these gay males know you don't? Where is the source that gays are more miserable married than unmarried? Where is the source that says that only 5% marry? Even if only a few of them marry at least they are being benefited. I have a question for you. If only 5% of people took advantage of their right to bear arms would you be fine with a gun ban for that reason alone? In the US 2% of hetero couples get divorced while 1.1% of gay couples get divorced annually (1). Well so much for the misery thing. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org...

i disagree that it can be passed through DNA neither of my parents are gay. yes my mother experimented, but never gay. and i'm a full on lesbian. i know people who were adopted by a lesbian couple but yet WILL never be with a girl and cant even look at a girl that way. God says he loves all of his children. even the ones who are different, outcast, and over saw. god says he makes his children to his image. And its not like i chose to be this way. i cant help who i love. love should be love no matter what the gender as long as the two people are happy. why does everyone else care who people are laying in bed with every night. saying gay relationships should never exist or should against the law is the same as saying it about straight relationships. yes i admit our generation is known for how many gay people there are. but thats because we are tired of hiding. i mean while jesus was there in the manger there where lesbians somewhere us fulled with joy because of the word their savior has come. they where their waiting to praise him. and do you think he just rejected them? i think not. jesus and god dont care about our sexual preference as long as we believe in and love him and let him guide us to our purpose.

I will be arguing the proposition "homosexuality is not a choice".

Pro opens the debate in round #1 with the following: "gender is a social construct cuse we are told when we are first born by a dude what gender but if he didnt tell us that we woudnt have a gender its only cuse he told us that gender that we are that gender i myself am an Androgenic masculine female attracted hermophro female and i am standing up against sexism and male patrechy" Gender defined: 1a : a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical formsb : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclassc : an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass 2a : sex b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex (1) Argument Etymology of "gender": The term "gender" has been in use to denote sex since the late 14th century, and has become more commonly so recently, as the term "sex" took on a meaning less regarding one"s genitalia and became more commonly used to reference the sex act. (2). In general use, gender and sex have become synonymous in referring to males and females. Con disagrees with the claim. The proposition that, we are told what our gender is after birth is proof that it is a social construct, is simply not the case. The physicians and other medical staff make a determination of the gender of a newborn based on physical characteristics, i. e. , genitalia, which are unique to a given gender. They do not decide and assign gender. They recognize what is. Simply denying the obvious gender of a newborn does not change the fact of it. Pro goes on to claim that if we were not told our gender our gender would not exist. We know this is not the case. Everyone is aware that the gender of a child is already factual prior to the pronouncement by medical staff. A child does not enter the world without gender and suddenly develop genitalia in accordance to the spoken decree of the attendees. If pro insists on going deeper into the substance of the individual, those gender differences are based on the 23rd pair of chromosomes in humans, with females having 2 X chromosomes and males having an X and a Y chromosome in the 23rd pair. (3) (4) The last sentence of Pro"s Round #1 argument is not disputed. Con would point however to Pro"s use of female in the description of herself. Con finds Pro"s argument that gender is an arbitrary assignment by a male at birth as part of an anti female world preposterous and wholly without merit. Con"s argument is refuted. Gender is not a social construct. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://www.etymonline.com... . https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... . https://www.britannica.com...

No rules or structure for this debate. Just debate/comment if you disagree. Definitions: Sexuality: The romantic and/or sexual attraction in regard to the human sexes. Sexual preference: Other variables of romantic and sexual attraction that don't relate to biological sex. Ex: age, Height, Income, Weight, Personality, Gender identity, Etc. The two-sex model: If we were to assume there are only two possible sexes in humans, And only two possible options for each sex (attraction or no attraction), Then there could only be 4 possible sexualities. Straight - attraction to the opposite sex Gay - attraction to the same sex Bisexual - attraction to both sexes Asexual - attraction to neither sex However, If we were to consider intersex or transgenders as a third sex, Since they often display ambiguous sexual characteristics, Then the 3-sex model would go as follows. Straight Gay Bisexual Asexual Intersex + bisexual - attraction to all 3 sexes Intersex + straight - attraction to the opposite sex plus those whose sex is ambiguous Intersex + gay - attraction to the same sex plus those whose sex is ambiguous Intersex only - attraction to only people whose sex is ambiguous There's a simple equation to find out the number of possible sexualities depending on however you wish to measure it: i - possible options per sex (ex: attraction or no attraction) n - possible sexes i^n - the equation for possible sexualities

My response in round two will be but a single mode of thought as my opponent has funnelled all three arguments to a case of IS versus OUGHT If you saw someone trying to feed himself through his ears and not his mouth (it's not hurting anyone), but he's acting contrary to the norm. Would you do anything to assist him to eat properly? Why do we even bother helping kids with autism or learning disabilities? Why do we teach kids proper manners? Why do we teach kids how to act properly in public? The thing is when we see something out of place or not working properly or not working towards their full potential, we have a tendency to fix things. Homosexual couples are acting in a way that their bodies were not designed for. I'm not saying we need to force people out of that lifestyle, but we shouldn't encourage it and cover it under the shroud of normalcy. If we define normalcy as that of historical and majority behavioural patterns, then homosexuality is not normal behaviour. Why do we correct people who mis-use things. And if we define normalcy as the proper use of ones reproductive organs, then homosexuality is not normal because homosexual partners mis-use their reproductive organs. I'll use an example for two male homosexuals: the anus is for expelling solid waste matter, not the receiving of spermatozoa-containing fluids. There are no cells in the anus or even colon for that matter that can be fertilized by spermatozoa. Not to mention that it's fact that male homosexual partners have many-fold higher changes of contracting an STD. So from an STD point of view, male homosexuality should be discouraged to reduce the spread of STD's. From the point of view of normalcy and mis-use of one's body parts, it should be discouraged. Suppose for example that it was found that homosexuality could be remedied with a pill, will this change the stance of society to encourage or discourage homosexuality? I believe it would. The ability to change homosexual orientation to heterosexual orientation would change the way society as a whole thinks of homosexuality. So then this argument boils down to, is there such a path or option that could change sexual orientation. From my arguments above, the answer is yes, there are people who have made that transition. Homosexuality can be fixed, which makes it a condition. If it is a condition that can be changed, then society needs to stop propping it up as the new "in" thing that its proud of, but to approach it from the point of view that there is a problem, how better can we develop ways to fix it. Society has jumped too quickly is claiming homosexuality as normal when a path exists that people have chosen to take to change their sexual orientation and remove homosexual feelings. If there were ZERO examples of such cases then there would be less substance in this argument, but since such examples exist, it is more difficult to claim that homosexuality is normal. As a clarification to contention 2, my opponent misunderstood my wording, I said "it is a choice to act upon them", which is different from homosexuality is a choice. A murderer can have feelings to kill, but it is his choice to act upon it. A person can have lust and homosexual feelings, but if they don't act upon it, it doesn't make them homosexual. Our actions define us. What I would like to see in the second round though is for the opponent to attempt to reconcile the issues brought forth under the assumption of the existence of a creator. Attack the argument under that assumption instead of brushing it aside with the blanket "can't prove god exists" argument.

You need to prove something. Starting with "I believe" is not the way to go because many people "believe" otherwise. Anyway how do you know she isn't normal and you're the weird one? And yes, she is most likely gay, but that's acceptable in our culture now days.

"The above sources ought to make the biological causation part of the statement true." Give me a break… "In addition, homosexual relationships are indeed an accepted lifestyle at the present time." As I asked you before, accepted by whom? A minority of kooks and weirdoes? "…why does the ignorance of 70-percent of a voter referendum cause such relations to be unacceptable?" Because most people are more intelligent than you give them credit for. "Why would anyone oppose such relations when they are by no means affected by the decisions of two consenting adults in a committing relationship?" AIDS come to mind? Dysfunctional households are much higher? Child adoption? That's child abuse in my opinion.

I'm finding my opponents flipping of Pro to Con a bit hard to parse. Some parts could be construed to be speaking in the 3rd person, and other reference to me, Pro. If my opponent is not admitting to making a logical fallacy it may be in his best interest to clarify in the final round. If Con is attempting to accuse me of ignoring evidence Con will have to be more explicit because I could make the same accusation against Con given that Con is a biology student could be considered willful, but I will leave it up to the voters to conclude if it is acceptable ignorance, or a willful suppression fallacy. Since my opponent is a biology student, and has admitted that kin selection is in humans I would like to remind everyone of what kin selection is. "Kin Selection refers to apparent strategies in evolution that favor the reproductive success of an organism's relatives even at a cost to their own survival, or reproduction."[15] My opponent is, most likely, correct in claiming that there is only one trait in humans that is subjected to kin selection. However that trait is so broad that it easily encompases my argument. That trait is altruism[16], and what is adoption if not an altruistic act. I would like to reiterate my claim about inheritance that my opponent is misrepresenting. I am not claiming homosexuality is genetic per say. I am claiming that it is epigenetic, and I provided a source in case he was unfamiliar since it wasn't until 2008 that a consensus definition of epigenetics even existed[17]. That wasn't even going to be done until the discovery of the transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of longevity traits from grandparent to grandchild in 2007[18]. It wouldn't even be that controversial to claim homosexuality to be epigenetic. To quote from a study on epigenetic models. "Our model predicts that sperm from the fathers with one or more [homosexual] daughters will differ from those with only heterosexual daughters by carrying unique (or statistically differentiated) epi-marks that influence the later stages of the androgen signaling pathway of the brain, or their expression is restricted to a subset of brain tissue, including sexually dimorphic nuclei that influence sexual orientation"[19] My opponents objection to my siafu comparison now appears to hinge on homosexuals choosing not to procreate with the opposite sex vs siafu not choosing. Claiming homosexual have a choice is a bold unsupported claim. A simple check of the most current evidence shows an interesting correlation. Gay women have a asymetrical brains like straight men, and gay men have symmetrical brains like straight women[20]. It appears the evidence suggests that sexuality isn't exactly a choice. I might agree that it is a choice if we were debating bisexuality, but we're not. Con hasn't been clear about what specifically he objects to with the occurrence of adoption, and insists that it is somehow "rare". The evidence shows that the occurrence of double orphans is hardly rare, and that we are just one natural or man made disaster away from being overwhelmed. Now Con appears to be claiming that homosexual relatives wouldn't adopt. Lets look at the evidence. The Administration for Children & Families shows that adoption by family is the prefered option for adoption in the US[21]. If con is attempting to claim that homosexuals wouldn't adopt. Then Con would have to explain why the homosexual community continues to fight to have, and keep their adoption rights[22]. If adoption didn't fulfil a biological, or psychological need then they wouldn't be fighting to keep it. In regards to the question to why aren't homosexuals just sterile it becomes simple logic. If someone were born heterosexual, but barren much of my argument would still apply to them. However, they have the cost of potentially occupying an otherwise fertile partner. A better question would be why aren't they asexual like Sir Isaac Newton[23]. That is easily addressed by looking at the difficulties single parents have in our societies. Of the three possible options homosexual adoption by a relative ensures the highest rate of success, and doesn't lock up any individuals intended for procreation. Con is wrong about the purpose of evolution. If evolution solely optimized for quantity multiple births would represent the majority of natural births, and women would have more than two breasts. As it stands over 95% of all births are singles for humans[24]. This is because humans are optimized for quality of children over quantity[25]. Because humans are optimized for quality any loss is devastating when compared to a species that is optimized for quantity, like rats. If having a homosexual child helps as insurance the survival of the grandchildren against natural, and manmade disasters then they are a natural, and essential part of the evolutionary process. Thank you, and I welcome my opponents final response. [15] http://www.princeton.edu... [16] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [17] http://genesdev.cshlp.org... [18] http://www.pbs.org... [19] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... [20] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [21] https://www.childwelfare.gov... [22] http://abcnews.go.com... [23] http://www.nndb.com... [24] http://www.cdc.gov... [25] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Round three rebuttals"POINT #1: HOMOSEXUALITY IS A MENTAL ILLNESS.Purely by definition you can tell it fits the description."any of a broad range of medical conditions (such as major depression, schizophrenia, obsessive compulsive disorder, or panic disorder) that are marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, or emotions to impair normal psychological functioning and cause marked distress or disability and that are typically associated with a disruption in normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, interpersonal interactions, or daily functioning"" ScmiedforgeI fail to perceive how you have sufficiently backed up your claim. Second, you fail to address how this impacts the resolution and thus is both a bare assertion fallacy and red herring thus far. "Description A premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true." [8]"The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic." [9]"However I'll gladly go into further detail. Homosexual teens are 5 times more likely to attempt committing suicide than their heterosexual peers, and apparently that's in a supportive or at least not unsupportive environments." ScmiedforgeThis is circular reasoning. Gays are mentally ill because theyattempt to commit suicide more often therefore they are mentally ill. "Mental Illness and Violent Crimes"The assumption that people with mental health issues are violent is deeply entrenched (cleaver-wielding 'lunatic' costumes, anyone?). It often leads to circular reasoning. How often have you heard people claim that committing a violent crime is proof of mental illness? 'Only a mentally ill person would kill someone, so anyone who kills someone is automatically mentally ill.' Leaving aside the vast majority of homicides which aren’t committed by people with mental problems, this isn’t evidence based."" [10]My opponent assumes the premise of gays being mentally ill by showing that gays are more likely to commit violent crimes against them selves. A more reasonable explanation would be anti-gay sentiment and stigma often from religious groups. Think of the WestBoro Baptist Church. [11]"The study, published in the journal Pediatrics online on April 18, was conducted in order to determine whether living in a gay friendly social environment affected the risk of a teen identifying as homosexual committing suicide. It found that teens in unsupportive social environments were 20 percent more at risk of attempting suicide than those in supportive environments. "" ScmiforgeMy opponent has provided evidence that the reason gays are more likely to attempt to commit suicide is due at least in part to non-supportive social environments and not mental illness. ""concluding that homosexuals are far more likely to engage in illegal and socially dangerous behavior than heterosexuals. In fact, according to the study, homosexuals are over 107% more likely to have been booked for illegal activity than heterosexuals."" SchmiforgeMy opponent has engaged in circular reasoning again. That only crazy people commit crimes and therefore gays are crazy.""The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation."" SchmiforgeMy opponent has not proved that the men committing the acts were homosexual. Most rapes are committed for reasons of control and not sexual drive. Most likely the vast majority of men committing those sex abuse crimes against boys are straight."You can come to your own conclusions, but a spike in crime/suicide attempts are very rarely seen in groups that are not mentally ill." SchmiforgeCircular reasoning, there is a lot of anti-gay sentiment and stigma. "POINT #2: MARRIAGE IS A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION.Judaism talked about marriage long before government was involved in it, (1550-1200 B.C) then Christianity, then Islam...so since the major Religions of today all believe marriage is between a Man and a Woman and religion is the core of marriage" SchmiforgeThis is effectively an argument for might makes right. That the Abraham religions genocide and otherwise beat into submission the other religions, thus their voice should be heard and not others. Many religions have vastly different points of view than the Abraham religions, some even think homosexuality is a boon and not a bane. "POINT #3: MAIN PURPOSES OF MARRIAGE/NATURE AND NURTURE." SchmiforgeSchmiforge tries to make some point about love and gays and straight, but I can't make heads out of tails out of the argument.My opponent then takes a source from the infamous breitbart. "RIGHT BIASThese media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes. They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.Factual Reporting: MIXED"[12]Due to the mixed factual reporting, I think it is safe to say my opponent's claim is unsubstantiated and need a reliable source to be taken seriously. Second, there is a difference between a secret or closet gay and open gay. Most likely the study shows that the children are more likely to be openly gay as opposed to secretly gay. "Children of same-sex couples fare better when it comes to physical health and social well-being than children in the general population, according to researchers at the University of Melbourne in Australia." [13]My opponent then claims that children brought up in gay families fare worse. The above quote shows that in some ways those children fare better.Sources8. http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...9. http://www.logicalfallacies.info...10. http://grammar.about.com...13. https://www.washingtonpost.com...11. http://godhatesfags.com...12. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...13. https://www.washingtonpost.com...


Question: Is Sexual Orientation Predetermined at Birth?

Sexual orientation is innate and determined at birth.
The argument that sexual orientation is determined by genitalia seems irrelevant. To understand what a non-sequitur is, refer to this source.[1] The correlation between biological sex and sexual orientation does not imply causation. While biological sex and sexual orientation are related, the former does not determine the latter. If sexual orientation was solely determined at birth, identical twins would always share the same orientation. However, studies have shown that this is not always the case. In fact, the percentage of identical twins sharing the same sexual orientation ranges from 20% to 60%.[3, pg 271] These findings suggest that sexual orientation is not solely determined by genetics. Sources:[1] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...;[2] https://genepi.qimr.edu.au...;

I do not believe that homosexuality is genetic disorder, rather it's a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association has deemed sexual orientation to be fluid, or changeable throughout a person's lifetime. Sexual desire is not genetic, it is in the mind. I am arguing the opposite position, that homosexuality is not a genetic disorder. However I am going further to say that genetics have nothing to do with sexual orientation. There is no evidence that genetics plays any role in sexual orientation. Studies of identical twins show that if one twin is homosexual, the other rarely is, "only 11% of the time in men and 14% of the time in women" [1]. If identical twins are created by the splitting of a single fertilized egg into two 100% genetically identical ovum, then if one twin is gay, then the other twin would also have to be gay, since they would both share this hypothetical "gay" gene shared between their genetically identical DNA. Therefore, homosexuality is not genetic, rather a product of outside forces not related to genetics. [1] http://amazinghealth.com...

Let's be proper here. Everyone is either born a male or a female. You can get that changed later in life, that's up to you. But, the definition of male is: of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring. While the definition of female is: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes. Basically, you either have something that fertilizes an egg, or you have the eggs. You can't have both, and you can't have none. I also have a weird feeling that everything you say is going to be opinionated, with no real factual evidence to support your statements, in which case I will leave this debate.

To begin with, I would like to point out that if homosexuality were to be classified as a mental disorder, it would have no effect on wether it has a biological basis or not. I will also refrain from commenting on wether or not it should be classified as a mental disorder, as I don't know nearly enough as to what the reasoning for having it there in the first place was.While Pro does make a compelling case against the reasons that caused homosexuality to be taken off the DSM, this does not do much to provide significant (if any) support to his standpoint in the debate. Merely being listed in the DSM does not make a condition totally psychological - many disorders listed there (such as ADHD, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia) are partly heritable.Unfortunately for Pro, the near-entirety of his argument in this round consisted of a criticism of the removal of homosexuality from the DSM. Pro also did nothing to criticize the prior evidence that homosexuality has a significantly biological foundation. If the data presented is correct, then Pro's initial statement (that "there is no firm biological basis to homosexuality") is patently incorrect.As I have demonstrated repeatedly in the previous rounds, genetics do play a significant role in determining sexual orientation. And while that may not be the only relevant factor, to totally deny their influence, and label it as exclusively psychological would be a dismissal of the vast amounts of data that indicate this is not the case.

Resolution: Homosexuality in Humans is Natural Definitions: Natural is that which does not conflict with natural law. Natural Law has many possible definitions. However, for this debate, natural law will be defined as the evolutionary process. Homosexuality is the state of being sexually attracted to the same sex.

Responding to my opponent's rebuttals: Not a Choice = Wrong? : My opponent claims that if something isn't a choice, it isn't wrong. This is absolutely not the case and is not a valid argument whatsoever. There are many things that aren't choices that are wrong. Some people are born psychopaths. Some people are born with things that they can't help but it does not make them right. Homosexuality not a choice: My opponent fails also in claiming that homosexuality is not a choice. Homosexuality is a choice. The action of copulating with the same sex is a choice. It is not uncontrollable. Not only is the action wrong, but the desire wrong, as shown in previous arguments that my opponent has failed to adequately refute, given his claims that the anus is a sex organ and that homosexual intercourse is proper. HomoSEXuality is the mere sexual involvement. You may be a male, and love a brother or a father, but that does not make it a homoSEXual relationship. Homosexuality is determined as the sexual attraction, not the love. Necrophilia: My opponent also implies that necrophilia isn't common, thereby attempting to refute my necrophilia analogy. He is missing the point of the argument. There are many different animals that engage in necrophilia and other strange sexual activities that could be considered wrong for humans. The point of the analogy is to show that just because things happen among animals makes it RIGHT for humans. Animals are typically barbaric and ruthless. Behaviors that occur among animals may not serve as basis for what is considered to be right. Sex Organs: My opponent tries to make the claim that the mouth and anus are sex organs. They are not, as seen by the definition of sex organ[1] and their zero involvement with the reproductive process. This entire argument collapses. Love: My opponent establishes zero criteria for the difference between romantic and familial love. This is entirely relative and perceptions of love differ from person to person. Unfortunately, this argument collapses as well, due to his lack of criteria. Homosexuality is not defined as the romantic love, and romantic love is not in any way connected to sexual intercourse, given there are asexual humans that are engaged in a romantic relationship with the other [3]. Infertility My opponent makes the claim that through my logic, sex with an infertile partner is wrong. The definition for sexual intercourse says otherwise [2]. Anything other than what is given in the definition is pleasure or recreation, rather than sexual intercourse. He doesn't make any VALID claims backing homosexuality as a RIGHT reproductive strategy. This misses the point of the argument. Homosexuality's preparation for reproduction: I could make the same claim that necrophilia is a valid reproductive "strategy" because it prepares for sex with a live woman. This is a valid strategy, but it is NOT a valid strategy that is morally right. Does it make necrophilia right? No! This entire argument fails beyond repair given these circumstances. This claim does not meet the terms of argument. My opponent finally gives three reasons to vote for con: 1. Homosexuality does no harm Homosexuality does "harm" to those who oppose it. It "harms" a parent of a child who witnesses something that is not akin to the parents desires. Homosexuality may offend and harm many people, depending on their beliefs. Just because it doesn't "harm" people doesn't make it right. Private use of child pornography may not harm anybody, but it does not make it right. Homosexuality also serves as a dysfunctional family structure, as the values and qualities of a family need balance given by the opposite sexes. This is not a valid reason to vote and the reason given is inadequate. 2. Banning homosexuality is immoral The claim of something being wrong does not imply a ban. I do not suggest that homosexuality is to be banned. I claim that it is not a valid reproductive process according to nature's standards. I do not oppose homosexuality; I just oppose its validity as a reproductive strategy. To claim that just because something is wrong means it should be banned. This is also an invalid reason to vote, given the invalid leap between the argument and the resolution. 3. Majority support My opponent commits the bandwagon fallacy. If you vote based on this reason, you vote out of fallacy. Reasons to vote pro: 1. Homosexuality is wrong due to nature's standards, although it may not harm anyone 2. Homosexuality isn't a valid reproductive strategy 3. Homosexuality is a new movement that opposes the moral standards of past eras I thank my opponent for an interesting and exciting debate, and I hope to debate him on other subjects as well. [1]http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org...

You need to prove something. Starting with "I believe" is not the way to go because many people "believe" otherwise. Anyway how do you know she isn't normal and you're the weird one? And yes, she is most likely gay, but that's acceptable in our culture now days.

Let me rebut my opponent's arguments in round 2 first.1. All sexual activity that is moral, is rational.2. All sexual activity that is rational, is reproductive* in nature.3. Ergo: All sexual activity that is moral is reproductive in nature.4. Homosexual acts are not reproductive in nature.5. Ergo: Homosexual acts are not moral. I will begin by attacking number 2. Why does Ajabi think that all sex activity that is rational is reproductive in nature?? If two people were really being rational, and they wanted to have safe sex, then certainly they would put on condoms and thus have zero possibility of reproduction, showing us that in this situation rational sex=/= reproductive.My opponent tries to support this crucial point with the fact that within evolution, only the "fittest may survive", which means people must reproduce, which means rational sex would be reproductive. However, not all people want to go with evolution--I.E., not the entirety of "this house" may want to reproduce. Again, some people get it on for pleasure. Other people may be rational and think "let's not give birth for a baby under these circumstances, let us wait a while for a safer environment". Again, unlike birds who may accidentally lay eggs in a tree high up where thunder storms happen super often, we are smart, we can predict, if "this house" means any rational person, then any rational person would try to give birth under the safest conditions possible. So, if the conditions are too dangerous, then reproductive sexual activity is although "rational" under evolution's theory, it would not be "rational" neither "moral" because the baby is very likely to die. In addition, even if my opponent shows that homosexual acts are in fact "not moral", that does not mean they are immoral!! By the definition of immoral it means the opposite of morality. But "not moral" is just zero, neutral zone. If I randomly say "Blahg", and ask you whether philosophically this is a moral statement, you could argue that it is not moral, since it does not help you or anyone else in particular, but you cannot say it is immoral, since I did nothing wrong and did no harm with the strange statement of mine. And of course, my statement "Blahg" is irrational, making no sense, yet it still does not fit in with the definition of "immoral"...thus, irrational =/= immoral."This instinct must have some rational purpose, or rational grounding as we have also already realized." That is indeed correct. Most of our instincts are right, but some are wrong. We may panic in a fire when the best thing to do is to stay calm so you can think carefully and find a way out of the danger. Similarly, we want food, a basic necesity for survival--but should we eat junk food everyday even though our brains are yelling "YES" out of our instincts? No, of course not! (Unless you are starving to death, but let's assume this is a normal, healthy person living a good earning life) In this case, our inate instincts have gone too far and betrayed ourselves. Thus this is proof that we need some instinct, but not necessarily all of it. Therefore we don't need all of lust and we don't necessarily need to get it on in order to reproduce" ...lust is neccessary for survival....directly causes sex" What??! Lol, that's totally not true. Without sex we can still live, and sex only carries on our genetic traits, which may or may not matter to us depending on who we are. "...a loving God would only endow man and woman with lust had it have a specific purpose, this purpose will be reproduction, that is to carry on the human race." Uh-huh. My opponent makes a load of errors in this argument:-No proof of God's existence-No justification for an infinitely just god-No justification for an infinitely loving GodPlus, my opponent contradicts himself especially with the "infinite". How can someone, or something, be "infinitely just and loving"? And if God was really infinitely just and loving, would he not love gays too and be just (fair) and as a result give men the lust to love men as well as women, in order to be truly INFINITELY just and loving!? Under my opponent's suppositions, God would really make men and men also able to reproduce, because it would not be fair or just to only allow a man + woman to reproduce. Thus my opponent's God arguments easily fall apart because they contradict themselves. Reconstructing my arguments:1. Homosexuality is natural, thus moralHomosexuality started a long long time ago, before Christianity or any anti-gay religion started. This shows that religious arguments are biased and ineffective. In addition it was considered normal from a long time ago, showing that it was considered natural for many people. My opponent makes inappropriate comparisons to pedophilia, rape, and psychopathy, they are completely different and all have negative effects. On the other hand gay sex has no negative effects and on the contrary is even more positive than straight sex, since straight sex can bring unwanted pregnancy, abortion, and many many diseases [1].2. Can't go wrong with gaysMy argument does not fail. Here is how my arguments go:-If girl does not want to get pregnant (get a baby), and she gets pregnant (gives birth to a baby), it is immoral (Because she got something bad that she didn't want, since she probably can't take care of the baby)-If a gay does not want a baby, and he does not get a baby, it is moral (Because the gay knew he couldn't take care of the baby, and he didn't get the baby, showing a responsible choice which is moral)You see, I am showing a positive benefit that gays have. I showed that with gays it is a choice and the gays can decide whether or not they get the baby. The girl on the other hand can accidentally do immoral actions, which shows that straight sex can be more immoral than gay sex. Once again, my opponent must show that gays can somehow cause harm which is immoral. 3. Homosexuals adopt children"The debate here is about sexual activities, not about their personal life. If a gay person helps an old lady cross the street it may be a moral thing to do, but it does not make homosexuality moral, it makes the homosexual moral in that regard." You are right, but if gays are more likely to help old ladies cross streets than straights, then they are more moral than straights. Similarly, if more gays adopt children than straights, then they are definitely more moral than straights, and are overall moral because of their good actions.4. Not irrational= moral (sorry about the typo last round, I meant to say "It should not be considered irrational, and thus should not be considered immoral")"my opponent strawmans my arguments by making them something they are not."Impossible. I never read your arguments before your round so I could not have possibly made a straw man misinterpreting my arguments. I researched online to find that proponents of homosexuality's immorality usually talk about how homosexuality is irrational, and thus isn't moral. I therefore counter that point by telling us that homosexuality isn't considered "irrational" from my source [5] from round 2, which is actually one of the trustworthy websites (Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy in particular) Ajabi mentions that definitions come from, it counters his own arguments. And to say this in a clearer way, no, I did not concede. I made an error.To strengthen this argument further, let me talk about how even the most rational people support homosexual behavior [2]. This source shows that many famous, rational people think that homosexuality is moral, and thus "this house" has a bunch of notable exceptions to who believes homosexuality is immoral, and thus you cannot just make a general statement about how "This House Believes Homosexuality is Immoral" since I show it is in fact rational, supported by many famous rational people. [1] http://www.plannedparenthood.org...[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...

Before I begin, I want to say I am fiercely PRO-LGBT AND HUMAN RIGHTS. Because of this I am going to ignore your first argument, and other arguments except for the second because that does not seem to go into the terms of being gay is NOT bad sort of thing. What is choice ? Choice - an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities When I was young and navive, I want to be left-handed because I was convinced that left-handed people were smarter (which is obviously not true in all cases). But, I was born right-handed, however that doesn't mean I don't have a choice. So, even though I was right-handed doesn't mean I couldn't be left-handed. Because really wanted to be left-handed. But couldn't sadly speaking. I could always fake it untiI make it. Applying, my brief anecdote to my own sexual orientation, I could want to homosexual and I could fool myself into thinking, I am gay, but I wouldn't be gay. Because I simply wasn't born that way. However that doesn't mean I don't have a choice in the matter. Just like people that don't have a choice in their sex, but do have a choice in their gender identity. We all have a choice in what we could be and who we are. This is called freedom. Or If you are simply implying that choice is the freedom to choose what we want to be or be who we are, then that's for the next round. Please clarify and be as specific as you can. I do so love a good round of wits! 😀😀😀

I provided logical arguments for the claim that homosexuals have sexual attraction for the same sex. I argued that sexual attraction is not chosen by appealing to each of our individual experiences of our sexual attraction and the fact that we can't change our attraction through our will. This argument has not been contested by my opponent. "we can't change our attraction through our will"Says who? Who told you that, Con? You keep making these sweeping claims without offering a scintilla of scientific evidence. Your supposed "logical arguments are entertaining, but why can't you grasp they're not enough? Why cant you grasp that if there was any validity to them you'd be able to present scientific cites? Do you even know what a scientific cite is, Con? "Well you are claiming that gays can choose who they are attracted to. This is a claim and you must back it up."I never said, implied, or suggested gays can choose who they are attracted to. Are you resorting to outright lying now? I said there is no scientitic evidence to support your claim that gays can't choose who they're attracted -- that the claim is LGBT junk science. In otherwords, you can't support your claim, Con, so what you do now is engage in is chicanery. There is no scientific evidence supporting your claim that gays can't choose who they're attracted to. Please stop making the claim or present evidence to support it. It's really that simple. Is Anal Sex is DangerousHonestly I takes this argument as seriously as the claims that masturbation will sterilize you. There are health risks for anal sex just like there are health risks for real sex, sky diving, running, or medications. However, if you are careful, you can reduce risks.Some steps that can be taken is use plenty of lubricants to avoid tissue tearing, don't do oral sex after anal sex, relax before anal sex like take a warm bath, stop if anal sex is painful, make sure the anus is clean before anal sex, see your doctor if anything usual starts happening, and be gentle when doing it (1).500,000 have died from anal sex, gay males make up 75% of all new HIV cases, all this and you would have us believe male-to-male anal sex is no more dangerous than straight sex? Are you serious? And why do you believe in the LGBT notion of "safe-sex?" If male-to-male anal sex can be made safe, why are gay males still dropping like flies?Honestly, you need to stop repeating your LGBT talking points and check out the scientific literiture. Nothing you claim is orginal; all of it is warmed-over LGBT talking points. And then you so blantantly ignore the scientific evidence I present. Earlier I linked you to a paper by Dr. John Diggs. The paper was a in-depth study of "The Hazards of Gay Sex." One of the points made is that with frequent anal sex the anal/rectum subsystem is compromised. It becomes dysfunctional, the seal is eroded and these men must start wearing diapers.Diggs goes on to explain that the anus was not designed to withstand the trauma produced by anal sex pounding. This is yet another dirty little secret the LGBT community don't want the public to know -- anal sex causes anal/rectal dysfunction.Gay Marriages WorkI have already cited statistics that gay marriages are almost half as likely to end in divorce with an annual 1.1% divorce rate compared to a 2% divorce rate for strait couples. All my opponent has done is provide an uncited reference to ten gay couples that have gotten divorced. That is a really bad sample.No, gay marriages don't work. And that's because gay males are the most promiscuous creatures on the planet and find it intolerable. Gay culture is based on promiscurity, not traditional marriage ideals. Gay bars, bath houses, Fire Island, the Greenich Village Docks, the gay porn industry, gay escort services, Even "The Advocate", the national gay news paper, are all a celebration of gay sex. You don't know this, Con, because you've never heard of these places. Likewise, you've never read Guy Rotolo or Randy Shiltz. You're here parroting LGBT talking points you've never researched.Young, fast track gays want nothing to do with same-sex marriage. This explains why after ten years of it in Massachusetts 95% of gay males remain unmarried. It's the older gays who want it -- the gays nobody wants. What younger gays want is access to boys -- that's why they're for same-sex marriage: they know once it becomes law it gets them into the schools where they can recruit.

Actually, Gilgamesh is a secular source of what happened in the Bible. Gilgamesh was written based off of the true events that happened, and so was the Bible. Also, if this gay gene was supposed to regulate population, it is not doing a good job of it now. If you do say we are seeing more gays now because of evolution, then why hasn't any other part of us evolved? The evolutionary explanation I have heard from others is that we are at a break of evolution, so if the gay gene really is coming out and nothing else is happening, that means that we are already fully evolved, which is obviously wrong.


Question: Should Animals be Utilized for Scientific and Commercial Experimentation?

Monkeys should be recognized as legal persons

Amina Amjed presents a compelling case for animal rights. Here are her main points:

1. The exploitation of animals for science, commerce, agriculture, and entertainment should be abolished.
2. Animals should be treated with the same consideration as vulnerable humans, such as children, the disabled, and the elderly.
3. The mistreatment of animals for human purposes is fundamentally unjust.
4. Humans must cease viewing animals as objects and acknowledge them as beings capable of experiencing pain and suffering.
5. The process of animal rights reform is complex and time-consuming, but it is necessary.
6. Animal rights are grounded in reason, not merely emotion.
7. We have a moral obligation to protect animals from cruelty, akin to our duty to protect vulnerable humans.
8. Animals should not be overlooked because they lack human characteristics.
9. Using animals for scientific experiments and sports is morally reprehensible.
10. Pain is universal, regardless of the species experiencing it.
11. Some may argue that contractarianism justifies the use of animals, as it holds that morality is based on voluntary agreements.
12. However, animals cannot consent to such agreements, and the same applies to children, who are still afforded protection.
13. The cruelty-kindness view and utilitarianism have been proposed to defend animal rights, but they are flawed.
14. The inherent value approach recognizes that all individuals have equal worth, regardless of their utility to others.
15. Animals should be treated with the same rights as humans, irrespective of their usefulness to us.
16. We should not exploit animals for the benefit of others, as it promotes cruelty.
17. The rights view of moral theory provides a rational basis for human morality.
18. While animals lack certain human attributes, we do not devalue humans who lack these abilities.
19. Both humans and animals experience emotions, desires, and suffering.
20. All beings with inherent value possess it equally, regardless of species.
21. The struggle for animal rights is comparable to the fight for equality for women and other marginalized groups.
22. Animals used in scientific research are often devalued and mistreated, violating their rights.
23. Farm animals are subjected to stress and suffering due to confinement, reflecting a lack of recognition of their individual worth.
24. Killing or torturing animals for selfish reasons is no more morally acceptable than doing so to humans.
25. Rights are claims that one party can assert

Now lets get on with my first argument. Animals are mistreated in circuses Animals shouldn"t be used in circuses because they are mistreating the animals. Exotic animals are supposed to be free roaming the wild, not under a big tent jumping through hoops of fire and balancing on their heads! Animals in circuses are usually hurt with whips and billhooks, kept in a small cage where they eat, sleep, and do their business all in the same place, and so much more. PETA recently confiscated a video which shows a trainer beating an elephant, while other trainers are shouting stuff like "hit her, make her scream! " This just proves my statement. , heres the video: www. youtube. com/watch? v=V4lO8Ner3hYR06; As you can see, circuses are a poor place for animals to live, as it's more like a prison to them. I await my oponents response

Without animal testing most medical drugs/cancer treatments wouldn't have been developed as fast/at all. The animals tested on have never seen the wild, they are bred and reared for one purpose, testing. I believe these are NOT right: 1) Make-up tests 2)When weapon manufacturers use their firearms to try out on live pigs/animals. 3) Shampoo and miscellaneous stuff that wouldn't even benefit society. That's it really. I believe that it is completely morally right when it could save a patient of a deadly disease, for eg: "Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century -- for both human and animal health. From antibiotics to blood transfusions, from dialysis to organ-transplantation, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present-day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with animals." http://www.mofed.org... reading that you must agree that it's mostly right, I'm sure that we wouldn't be where we are if it wasn't for certain animal testing.

I will be arguing that humans have a moral responsibility towards non-human animals. This responsibility finds its grounding in a utilitarian moral framework. I will argue that animals should be included on an equal basis to humans when making moral decisions and that animals have equal rights to humans. These rights are based on natural and not societal reasons. Equal rights should be extended to non-human animals where practical (this may not be practical in some instances such as in the right to vote). This will be a debate over whether animals have these natural rights. Definitions. Utilitarianism: the doctrine that an action is right in so far as it promotes happiness and minimises pain, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct. Right: a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something.

Thanks to Pro for his arguments this round, and I'm going to launch straight into this. Pro is fundamentally misunderstanding my arguments, which is the entire reason he sees contradictions. From the outset, no, I did not agree that the utility of animal experimentation is irrelevant. That's a necessary portion of understanding my arguments in support of utilitarianism. If it doesn't have utility, it can't also be utilitarian. Let's go through the summary points he provides. Point 1) The magnitude of the lives saved is larger than the ones sacrificed during the experiment. (Or as I call it the 'moral math' argument) It is, in part, a math argument on lives saved and quality of life gained. This one is mostly correct. Point 2) Use of animals is the only realistic viable solution for the problem of consent. Not my point. Never once said the word "viable" beyond responding to Pro's question. I said that consent, across the board, is impossible to gain from both humans and animals at this stage, meaning that any harms that come from a lack of consent apply no matter the circumstance, which means consent issues are not unique to my case. Point 3) A human life weighs more than an animal life. Pro keeps saying this, yet I've never once, in this debate, made this argument. I've stated that we, like all animals, are self-interested. I've stated that we, unlike other animals, can do research into how to protect from and treat disease. That doesn't make us higher weight, it just emphasizes the very purpose for which we are having this debate. I don't understand where he's getting this point from. I don't know how Pro completely left out my arguments about a lack of available alternatives and the contextual issues, which were integral to my last round, since these were central to my argumentation. Now, let's look at those contradictions: 1) Lives lost contradiction Yes, I did concede that number of lives is not the SOLE factor for deciding morality. Leaving out that word "sole" is a big problem, because he's straw manning my argument. I'm not saying lives lost don't connect to morality - they do. They apply in the Hitler-Stalin example; both men are immoral chiefly for the number of people they killed, though that is not the sole factor to assess with regards to their morality. I mentioned context multiple times throughout my last post and assessed its importance. That doesn't mean that I contradicted any of my former claims about life lost presenting a moral harm. I really don't understand why I have to present every mitigating factor up front - this was a direct response to your analogy. I wasn't about to spend my first post assessing all of the means by which morality is affected in a utilitarian sense. I don't see why my lack of detail shows that I'm "hid[ing my] contradiction," especially since said contradiction doesn't exist. We can evaluate utilitarianism in context without saying that lives lost don't matter. 2) "Realistically viable" Here, again, he uses this strange verbiage. "Realistically viable." He quoted it in the last round as though it came from me, but I never said that line. There's a difference between viability and utility. Viability is the capacity to be operated or be sustained. Utility is usefulness, the ability of something to satisfy needs or wants. In this case, we're talking about utility for needs. The fact that it can be sustained doesn't make it moral - it just makes it effective. It's as simple as that. 3) The Island Considering that the third premise is completely wrong, no, I didn't contradict my own point here. He also misunderstands my response. The majority of it is to show that there is utility to a situation where humans are created and not just plucked from the general population in order to benefit other humans. I also stated that this is most moral when a clone is created without a brain, therefore lacking personhood. Pro is nonresponsive to these points. 4) The injection analogy Pro is mishandling this argument. It doesn't matter who the beneficiary is, or who is the victim. Pro is presenting a deontological argument where he can separate out a means and evaluate its morality without looking forward or backward in time for context. At the point that the injection occurs, there is no beneficiary. It's not until later that the victim becomes the beneficiary. Ergo, as long as I evaluate morality before looking forward to the beneficial effects of the drug, the injection is net harmful. What's worse, he actually contradicts himself here. Remember in the previous post when he was making a distinction between a moral cause and an immoral act, stating that a moral cause - even one that saves billions of lives - isn't sufficient to make an act moral. Yet here, he justifies intrusion on a person's consent for the purposes of injection of something beneficial. He can't have it both ways. 5) Damage to non-humans for the sake of humans is unconscionable Pro asserts this, but never provides a reason why this is specifically problematic enough to call the entire practice immoral. The asymmetry of information and power is nonunique - human beings assert that power over rodents in everyday life. Changing this is not going to suddenly empower rodents. What this does do is provide some protection for rodent pets (which, last I checked, is still a benefit for some rodents). 6) Context is relative This point is just plain confounding. Pro looks at the complicated context of a lion eating prey, and uses it to say that ALL contextual morality is relative. He never shows how context isn't straightforward in this case. It's not enough to use an analogy - he can't simply state that the context of this particular case is relative by analyzing another. The only point he makes in this regard is that "it is safe to assume that by necessity we must assume that there is an absolute moral standard whose jurisdiction stretches beyond the boundaries of both species," but this is absolute nonsense. We're focusing on humans and their effects on animals of interest. We don't need an absolute moral standard for this because other species outside of this research and its effects don't play a role; we must simply evaluate the effects on life and its quality lost (which, I would say, is an absolute moral standard anyway, though it doesn't have to be). And no, it doesn't validate your approach. Just because it's more difficult to evaluate across species doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Your simplicity by comparison doesn't make your evaluation the correct one. The legal understanding of murder is actually strong support for my view. We have to look at the cause and intentions of the research, and not just at the morality of the research itself in a vacuum. 7) Concession on equivalency Pro keeps misunderstanding this point. I've already stated my views on equivalency as completely as I can manage, and no, it's not a concession - Pro assumed from the start of this debate that my position on this issue was opposite his. The reason I said that human experimentation was mainly immoral had to do with utility - using more humans and taking longer to test due to longer life cycles. Another reason I didn't mention is that, unlike with rodents, we can't just breed humans in a lab environment for the purpose of research, and we certainly can't genetically modify them to be identical, or to have certain characteristics of interest for specific tests. We've become effective at these things for rodents, and already have populations available. To do the same for humans would simply compound the problems of captivity and experimentation. Overall, my opponent has tried, time and time again, to peg my arguments as faulted utilizing his views of what my arguments should be. He points out flaws that don't exist (though I'll admit, my arguments are far from perfect), and uses false analogies as attempts to point out more. Last time, back to Pro.

I agree to debate animal testing with you. I would like you to clarify when you feel it is and isn't okay to use animal testing. With specific examples, if possible. I don't think we have the right to experiment on another living creature without their consent.

Thank for your great arguments. now on...*I wouldn't think anyone was going to accept this debate since we don't know much about where the animal that we eat come from or how we benefit from it everyday*Rebuttal 1: Animal Rights-It is true that animal cloning is violating animal welfare, as this puts the sick and deformed clone and the surrogate in unneeded suffering. But this same animal right that were violating is beneficial for humans because according to "123helpme the benefits of cloning animal states... "Now imagine it is the year 2007, and you are in dire need of a heart. The doctors do several tests to determine your genetic make-up, so they can find the right animal to match your needs. After replacing your heart with a pig heart, you recover and go on with everyday life. No one had to die, and you received your heart. With today's technology, this, and more human benefits, will be made possible with animal cloning. " Humans may suffer "immune deficiencies, diabetes, heart and lung damage, kidney failure, brain irregularities, and and other related diseases. Now for a human to suffer or die, Not really a humane thing to do, is it?""Since the first cloned mammal, scientists have worked to find a practical application for cloning that will produce advances for human diseases. In some inherited disorders, such as hemophilia, cystic fibrosis and emphysema, the only way to treat such patients is through therapeutic proteins, which are obtained through the milk of an animal (Straight). These animals carry a certain protein that is secreted in their milk or blood, which is then harvested and purified for use (Nagal). Drugs made from these proteins are extremely scarce and expensive. Recently, researchers have been able to transfer human genes that produce useful proteins into sheep and cows, which will then be produced in the milk of the animals ("Medical Uses.."). With the ability to clone, scientists will be able to genetically engineer animals for a particular protein and then mass-produce the proteins. In addition, cloned animals can be used to obtain a greater understanding for diseases and other mysteries of life. Researchers will be able to create better models of diseases with animal cloning, which will further progress in understanding and possibly treating such diseases (Nagal). "*Researchers' primary intention is to help cure diseases when natural methods do not work, not to act in harsh manners toward the animals, or to make a profit. *According to http://www.fda.gov... • cloning poses no unique risks to animal health, compared to the risks found with other reproduction methods, including natural mating• the composition of food products from cattle, swine, and goat clones, or the offspring of any animal clones, is no different from that of conventionally bred animals • because of the preceding two conclusions, there are no additional risks to people eating food from cattle, swine, and goat clones or the offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food Rebuttal 2: commericial beneficial-Now i know that it takes $20,000 to clone a cow, compared to $2000 of a naturally bred, that fact of the matter of cloning speeds it up for more of it while naturally we have to wait for it. "A 2006 survey by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology that found American consumers are uneasy about cloning, with 64 percent of respondents saying they would rather not eat cloned meat. This means it takes 10 times more to “create” a slab of meat (remember, costs are also 10 times higher) but only 36% of the public will want it." most of these people may simplily be vegetarians. But the matter of fact is that... "After years of detailed study and analysis, the Food and Drug Administration has concluded that meat and milk from clones of cattle, swine (pigs), and goats, and the offspring of clones from any species traditionally consumed as food, are as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals. This conclusion stems from an extensive study of animal cloning and related food safety, culminating in the release of three FDA documents in January 2008: a risk assessment, a risk management plan, and guidance for industry. Researchers have been cloning livestock species since 1996, starting with the famous sheep named Dolly. When it became apparent in 2001 that cloning could become a commercial venture to help improve the quality of herds, FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) asked livestock producers to voluntarily keep food from clones and their offspring out of the food chain until CVM could further evaluate the issue."*Proponents of livestock cloning see it benefiting consumers, producers, animals and the environment.**Meat and milk from cow, pig, and goat clones, and the offspring of any clones, are as safe as food we eat every day." Rebuttal 3: Guarantee of safety-While it may not be exactly guarantee there is still safety. According to...http://www.fda.gov... • cloning poses no unique risks to animal health, compared to the risks found with other reproduction methods, including natural mating• the composition of food products from cattle, swine, and goat clones, or the offspring of any animal clones, is no different from that of conventionally bred animals • because of the preceding two conclusions, there are no additional risks to people eating food from cattle, swine, and goat clones or the offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food FDA issued the risk assessment, the risk management plan, and guidance for industry in draft form for public comment in December 2006. Since that time, FDA has updated the risk assessment to reflect new scientific information that reinforces the food safety conclusions of the draft.“Our additional review only serves to strengthen our conclusions on food safety,” says Stephen F. Sundlof, D.V.M., Ph.D., Director of FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. “Meat and milk from cow, pig, and goat clones, and the offspring of any animal clones, are as safe as food we eat every day.” FDA’s concern about animal health prompted the agency to develop a risk management plan to decrease any risks to animals involved in cloning. FDA also issued guidance to clone producers and the livestock industry on using clones and their offspring for human food and animal feed. What Cloning Means to Consumers• FDA has concluded that cattle, swine, and goat clones, and the offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food, are safe for human and animal consumption. • Food labels do not have to state that food is from animal clones or their offspring. FDA has found no science-based reason to require labels to distinguish between products from clones and products from conventionally produced animals. • The main use of clones is to produce breeding stock, not food. These animal clones—copies of the best animals in the herd—are then used for conventional breeding, and the sexually reproduced offspring of the animal clones become the foodproducing animals.• Due to the lack of information on clone species other than cow, goat, and pig (for example, sheep), FDA recommends that other clone species do not enter the human food supply. Animal cloning is beneficial for the human race, in agriculture and drug production, maintaing biodiversity, and biomedical research. Facts shows it that its beneficial for human, animal, and the enviroment. I look forward from hearing from my opponent. http://www.123helpme.com...http://www.fda.gov...http://www.fda.gov...;

I would like to additionally offer to all interested that I would be glad to debate this topic with other people. Finally, I would like to encourage bbowhan to collaborate with others n the assembly of his arguments, as per rule 8 below. The topic of bestiality and zoophilia are questionable and oft sticky topics (pun intended), which generally produce a visceral reaction in the course of their discussion. Historically, sex with animals has been among the acts considered most obscene, an abomination above most -if not all- other things considered abominations. Despite this, there are in fact a great many things which human emotion arguably gets wrong about ethics: the human desire for revenge, forced heteronormativity, fear of change. In many people the list of emotional malfunction goes far deeper, into neuropathy, and psychopathy. Emotion is an approximation at best of "what is right", and as such, it becomes a valid question as to whether the visceral but none-the-less emotional animus against sex with animals is appropriate. As such, this debate is to explore whether such an animus is philosophically justified, or whether that animus is something that we ought overcome.1) First round is acceptance*, second round is argument, third round is rebuttal and additional supporting arguments, fourth round is pure rebuttal and final round is closing. Upon mutual agreement, round 5 may also include a final counter-rebuttal.2) *CON may go first; if CON uses his first round for argument, CON agrees his last round shall be a blank post, and for the purposes of voting, rounds shall be offset by one post3) Responses shall be directed towards the previous rounds(s) only. Round 2 "initial arguments" are to be independent.4) No direct "vote pandering". An argument ought stand on its own, without appeals to emotion or ad hominem.5) No "sneaky ****erism". This is defined as making declarations to win an argument rather than making an attempt to investigate whether a claim is actually valid or supported by reason. The winning argument here is to be determined as that argument which stands up to reason, not which argument/person people subjectively like more. In accepting, CON agrees that any votes which do not reflect an objective evaluation of the arguments (subjective votes) are invalid and to be ignored during final evaluation, retracted, or negated.6) No extended arguments, except if mutually agreed upon.7) Shared BoP; all positive claims must be defended, and all arguments must be supported with reasons; this is a philosophical debate, and first principles must be mutually accepted, if used as a basis of argument. Argument from authority, argument from tradition, and the naturalistic fallacy are all accepted as fallacies by CON.8) Shared participation is encouraged; while there can only be one formal "PRO" and one formal "CON", any independently supported argument may be advanced and picked up by the formal debators.9) First principles accepted in this debate must include that: "The universe exists"; "knowledge exists"; "all descriptive models have greater value than any non-descriptive model"; and that "equals OUGHT be treated equally".10) Additional rules as presented by CON shall be discussed in comments before being accepted.

A2:Animal testing can help us find new amazing discoveries. R: Many amazing discoveries have resulted from animal testing E1:"In the early 20th century, most medical professionals suspected polio was an infectious disease, but had little proof. In 1908, Dr Karl Landsteiner and Dr Erwin Popper used extracts from the spinal cord of a boy who had died from polio to replicate the disease in monkeys. These experiments allowed the disease to be transmitted from monkey to monkey, providing an invaluable model of the disease that could be studied." E2:It has helped advancements for rabies treatment,malaria, smallpox, diphtheria, inhalers,Parkinson"s disease, and many others. E3:The development of Tamoxifen in animals led to a 30% fall in death rates from breast cancer in the 1990s. - Understanding Animal Research Organization E4: Cetirizine,diphenhydramine,ibuprofen,aspirin,and NSAID have all been tested on animals and are available over the counter. E5:"Viral diseases, however, remained difficult to study. At this time, Dr John Enders and his colleagues developed a culture technique which allowed the polio virus to be grown in human tissue. They discovered that the virus not only grew in brain tissue as expected, but in other types of human cells. As the virus was too small to be seen with any available technique, there was only one way that Dr Enders could check that he had extracted the virus from mouse brain tissue and grown it in culture. This was to inject the culture fluid into mice and monkeys, where it produced paralysis typical of polio." I:Animal testing can produce amazing results.

yes thats true and all but there is alot of reasons we sould treat humans like dogs well dog like humans 1. humans have brains and dogs also have brains. 2. e walk on 2 legs they walk on 4 thats1 thing we dont have in common with them. 3.o.k you are proeley ging to wi this debate but im going to try and win this debate so i can get better at this. o.k humans are bigger than dogs so thats y we dont put them down because wehave been working with humans for years and for years to come. dogs on the other hand we have only been woking with them for only about a year now and we are getting better with dogs so maybe in 3 4 yeRS we wil be abe 2 not kill dogs and work on them like we work on human. if you can tell i love dogs alot and i dont like seeing dgs going trew pain. tanks for helping me get more info and helping me debate

I feel compelled to say that just because I am debating you on this topic, it does not directly reflect my opinions. You do not know that I am in favor of killing and torturing puppies. Therefore, if you offer no valid arguments, I would win the debate. You cannot make an assumption about my character and expect that to win you the debate. My opponents points: Utilitariansim: My opponent invokes utilitarianism in that he says that if it is better to kill/torture the puppy than not, then it is ok. That is my argument. If its better to kill than not to kill, then we should kill. Thank you. Kant: Kant merely states that if you can do an act and wish it to be a moral law that is unbreakable, then it is ok. So you provided one example. Here is a counter example to show why this argument invoking Kant should not matter. If a puppy does a wrong deed, and deserves torture, then you should torture it. Also, Kant is unreliable because it can cause us to do bad things. For instance: It is 1939, and you are hiding Jews in your home. That would be a good act, under Kantian Ethics. Nazis knock on your door asking if you are hiding any Jews. If you lie, you would be doing a good and moral deed under Kant. The law that would apply would be DO NOT LIE. However, if you lie, you are commiting a horrible act and a immoral act. That doesn't make sense. Therefore, Kantianism may look good on paper, but it does not stand up very well under close scrutiny. Natural Law: This is an opinionated statement. Just because you do not believe that a puppies' purpose is to be tortured and killed, it does not mean it is true. Hobbes: You are saying that because a social contract says so, it is wrong. You are invoking the fact that because someone/something says so, it is so. However, we are debating whether or not when someone/something says so, it is so. You can't invoke present conditions, since they are what we are debating about. No. I am arguing that puppies have a conscience that therefore mus be punished for any actions that deserve punishment. You misunderstand me. Bur you are still killing it. It doesn't matter why. You are advocating killing the dog. That is what I need to prove. Killing a dog as punishment was only one way. You have just provided another way. That's what we are basically debating about. Since when? Why else would we want to torture them? You are still killing the dog. It doesn't matter why. You are killing the dog. And seeing as you have done my job and justified it by saying it is for safety reasons, you just did my job. That is my point. Dogs are moral creatures. They have a sense of morality. If they know a certain action is wrong and deserves a certain punishment, they should receive that punishment if they do that action. Look at the above quote. You say yourself that dogs have a sense of morality. You are contradicting yourself. Enough said on that. < First, euthanasia is not torture. > But it is killing, which is half of the debate. So? They still have a sense of morality, so everything said above still applies. I'm sorry, but isn't that my argument? So throughout my opponents speech, he can be found not to be advocating his side, but mine. Seeing as he has done so, I really don't have much to say..... I'll just rehash my arguments: Dogs have a conscience. Dogs have a sense of morality. Therefore they know right from wrong. They know that a certain act warrants a certain punishment. If they do that act, they accept the punishment. Therefore, we would be discriminating against a species if we did not punish them. Thank you