David Nichols (PRO)Homosexuality=no reproduction.
Return To Top | Posted:
2021-01-07 06:58:30
| Speak Round
Gekk (CON)Homosexuality does not mean "no reproduction".
It means the normal form of reproduction we are used to would no longer be used or preferred.
More likely everything would move to test tube babies(https://www.verywellfamily.com/what-does-in-vitro-mean-1960211).
This would actually solve many various issues including overpopulation(https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/causes-effects-solutions-of-overpopulation.php)
Abortion would no longer be an issue, as there would never be any unwanted pregnancies.
Rather that catastrophic it would actually solve many current issues we have today in our society.
Many people may object due to their own code of ethics or tradition to such ideas however they have no base in reality.
The fear of homosexual's seems to stem from an irrational fears that have no basis in reality(https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/prej_defn.html).
The biggest issue with this debate is it has very little chance of becoming reality.
Return To Top | Posted:
2021-01-08 03:24:45
| Speak RoundDavid Nichols (PRO)Of course ARTIFICIAL means of reproduction could be used, but what if that technology didn't exist? And what would the need for that technology tell you about the normalcy of homosexuality? By the way, homosexuals are disliked because they corrupt and disgust normal adults and confuse children; but that's a separate debate, so don't bring it up.
Return To Top | Posted:
2021-01-08 04:19:14
| Speak RoundGekk (CON)Your agument holds very little water. The technology does exist thefore it is valid.
People not liking homosexuality or being "disgusted" by it holds no water as it is just an opinon.
The thing we are debating is it would be catastrophic and from the evidence I have presented it is clear it would not, and it would actually be an improvement.
As far as confusing children that is also somewhat subjective and likely based on the traditional view of a normal family household. I grew up in a single parent household and never really had the norms of two person household to begin with. There are many sucessful cases of children being raised in a homosexual household, therfore I don't think that argument holds any water either. It seems that it is likely more a confliction with youer "personal" values then anything else based in a logical sense. I would imagine that comes from a place of emotion or pathos rather then logic or even ethics.
Return To Top | Posted:
2021-01-08 04:23:54
| Speak RoundDavid Nichols (PRO)1.Con doesn't read well. I didn't say the technology is not extant 2.The existence of technology has nothing to do with homosexuality. 3.I explained why people dislike homosexuals. Of course it's their opinion, but that's irrelevant. 4.I guess the meaning of this debate wasn't obvious enough. So, preface it with "Without artificial intervention". There, is that better for con? If con wants we can start over. It doesn't matter to me, I'm going to destroy him either way. 5.There are no children in our scenario, so talk about children here is irrelevant. A separate debate can be arranged, and, again, I will send con into tomorrow.
Return To Top | Posted:
2021-01-08 04:47:25
| Speak RoundGekk (CON)It is pretty clear that you have lost this debate. Your premise was flawed to begin with.
You stated it would be catastrophic if everyone were homosexual, I shot down all your arguments pretty clearly and showed the exact opposite.
You tried to counter with "if we didn't have the technology we have today" which is irrelevant because we do. Even if we didn't there are many homosexuals that have had children, wrap your head around that for a few seconds. I am not sure what you are trying to destroy here, the only thing you have proven throughout this debate is seemingly ignorance and bigotry.
I understand it must hurt to have preconceived notations and then for them to be shattered, however that is what a debate is for, to discuss topics intellectually and gain perspective on different viewpoints. Debates help us expand our understanding about different concepts and I hope this debate has helped expand your understanding as well.
I understand it must hurt to have preconceived notations and then for them to be shattered, however that is what a debate is for, to discuss topics intellectually and gain perspective on different viewpoints. Debates help us expand our understanding about different concepts and I hope this debate has helped expand your understanding as well.
Return To Top | Posted:
2021-01-08 04:55:40
| Speak Round
Judge: jeremywarcher
So? Answer my question, nut.Posted 2021-01-09 17:14:44
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/24/791132555/japans-births-decline-to-lowest-number-on-recordPosted 2021-01-09 16:54:41
No one is reproducing in Japan, fool?Posted 2021-01-09 16:21:15
Literally they aren't in Japan...so...yeah...Posted 2021-01-09 16:13:58
Males and females will ALWAYS be having kids, fool. Posted 2021-01-09 16:02:41
If straight people never wanted to have kids we would be in the same predictament wouldn't we?
In fact this is the current issue in Japan, they have a decreasing population.Posted 2021-01-09 15:48:03
ZZ---You're speculating, rock, so I will too: If no homosexuals wanted kids, it would be catastrophic. Even if a few kids are born, they would be homosexual too! Therefore, you still have no reproduction, ultimately.Posted 2021-01-09 15:43:21
Sure they do, people do it all the time.
Some do it for money, others do it to have kids.
Just because your ignorant towards the subject doens't mean what you think to be true is correct.Posted 2021-01-09 15:29:56
People don't have sex with people they don't sexually desire, meathead.Posted 2021-01-09 05:49:01
Not true, there is a lot of ignorance.
Are you saying you can't have kids with someone you are not sexually attracted to?Posted 2021-01-09 05:42:30
ZZ---Homosexuals who have had children aren't homosexuals, they're bi-sexuals, genius. Posted 2021-01-09 05:29:13