Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #401
I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't choose to want to be around men.
Unless you mean it's a choice whether or not we should suppress out natural inclination?
-
-
I still don't see why we're keeping this open. The more people post, the less they bother to read any arguments that have already been presented, which means more stupid will continue to flow into this thread.
-
Okay, here's the deal:
If anyone of you can tell me how my argument is "bullshit" without redirecting me to a website (which you can't), I'll find all the sources you want.
"BUT O MAI GAWD DATS NAWT HAO U DEBATZ" <- If you're going to pull that shit, then you've just proven my argument.
(User was banned for this post ("Consistently refusing to cite sources, despite multiple warnings. - Real 2nd MD Offense" - Megafan))
-
Jesus fucking christ alright post any one of your insane arguments and I'll copy and paste all the information you'll ever need from any of the articles I'm intelligent enough to read. I still wouldn't be linking from another website, would I?
It's called doing research. If you are an imbecile of such magnitudes you really can't take the time to educate yourself on a topic what are you doing here.
-
That doesn't make sense. If we're not allowed to use sources, why are you allowed to use sources?
-
This is a week late and you're banned but you aren't right here. My father was an extremely abusive person. The reason I didn't turn out the same was not because I had some sort of support. I didn't turn out the same because I was determined to not be such a despicable person.
-
It's a gene that you are attracted to the same sex.
It's a choice to face that you have this gene.
-
Evidence to support your claim?
-
New thread title idea here
"Reality of Life - Can things be due to a variety of causes or do we only have two falsely definite choices in every matter?"
It's a bit of both. Stop trying to definitely say its 100% due to one, or 100% due to the other. People aren't born 100% gay or 100% straight, but they are born with a degree of inherent preference. With that in mind there is a degree of choice and preference in the matter as well.
-
Personal experience.
-
I think it's a little bit genetic and mostly what preferences you grow into. Maybe in a way it's just like a girl can prefer older men because she had no father around. I haven't read that much about it but thats what logically feels right to me.
-
People, if you're going to make a claim, please do what you're supposed to and provide evidence. Otherwise it starts a flamewar.
-
I'm afraid that's not evidence.
-
and here lies the problem
-
I have been educated on the subject. It's called human behavior. Something you should really take into consideration when discussing topics like this.
The offer still stands. Prove me wrong without using a source and I'll find all the sources you want. I'm not refusing to use sources - just simply proving you can't disprove my argument without using them. It humors me, really. The fact that you let some online article teach you how to think. Go to school and learn something about human behavior. That is, unless your school doesn't teach human behavior. In which case, you shouldn't be arguing with me. My argument has been approved, for your information. I'm not just pulling all this out of my ass. My teacher (who understands this stuff better than me or you) has agreed that my argument is very possible (though not probable). If you must know, she went to school for several years studying shit like this.
-
Jesus christ man, just humour us please. Even if you are correct, it's just proper debating etiquette to use citations and evidence.
-
You have yet to prove us wrong without evidence, I believe the burden of proof is on you.
-
You really, really, really don't understand debating do you? Even the most battle hardened debaters, with the highest degrees in their subject will not fall back on "lol i r educate!", they will cite sources, studies and papers for every claim they make. Studies will cite other studies to back up claims they make, it's just basic debating and research to actually show people where you are pulling shit from. "Knowing" it is not valid if you can't prove you have a valid piece of information that someone else could use to look at it in detail.
You are the one bringing counter-arguments to the topic at hand, you are the one citing "human behaviour", therefore you are the one with the burden of evidence. If you cannot provide evidence to back up your point, then your point becomes invalid to the debate. If you provide evidence for your points, then people can use their sources to attempt to discredit your points and sources, ad infinitum until one side is proven objectively wrong or concedes to the other.
Right now you are just discrediting yourself with every argument you make. The people actually using sources are beating your arguments every step of the way and you are making a massive tit of yourself.
-
As the expression goes, put up or shut up. You've wasted even text in this thread as it is, and continuing to claim that you're educated enough or have spoken to enough educated people to not require evidence is ridiculous.
-
Articles are never a credible way to get information. What you see as knowledge is really a person of many beliefs, ideologies, and goals behind it. Anyone justifying their beliefs with an article have no idea how to think independently and their words should be discarded.
-
Incorrect. For something like this we can use articles, studies and papers to show knowledge of the subject. These articles are not just random thoughts on the subject spouted off by random people who are thinking "independently", as long as they cite a peer-reviewed scientific study that is. They are a overview of, or a view of a study performed. For something like this topic, where there is an objective answer that the scientific method can help us understand, people who do not cite sources can have their arguments discarded, as they have no evidence their argument is correct.
It's all well and good being able to think for yourself, but knowledge is more than just thinking for yourself, it's looking at what others have thought, and seeing how you feel about their results, what they found, and if you accept that. For a topic like this sources are a must for arguments. The studies are the results of someone thinking for themselves, noticing something that they think is the cause, and doing research into it. These studies are checked with others to see if the results are valid, and the science is sound. basing your views on a subject off of a study does not make your opinion invalid, basing your views off of nothing does. Thinking for yourself is all well and good, but you need to be able to prove your ideas are actually credible.
-
Okay, I see what you're saying. My point is articles aren't always the best. There are more credible sources out there.
-
So it is better to argue without any support for any claims?
We are not citing opinion pieces.
-
Articles aren't the golden standard for every issue/problem/debate. Like I said there are more credible sources.
-
Most definitely. A article in most circumstances is not a great source. Unless the article is a factual report on a study, with citations and references to the study to back it up I would dismiss it myself for a topic like this.
-
-snip- Read that wrong.
Edited:
I know how debating works. I just think it's ridiculous how many of you are relying so fucking much on an article. The person who posted that source isn't "beating" me at anything. Like I said, take a class or two about human behavior.
Just because you can debate well, that doesn't mean your argument instantly is the most logical.
Edited:
Fucking this.
-
Sorry, relying on an article is the only way to show that you actually have evidence that what you said has some truth to it. I could easily say "Gravity is 50 times stronger around your mother", and going by your logic, as long as I took a few classes in physics, I would be correct even without providing any source of any form.
They aren't "relying" on an article, they are using the information in these articles to back up their points, provide evidence that their argument is sound. Something you haven't actually done. Just because you went to classes about something does not exempt you from providing evidence through sources. You seem stuck on the fact that people are using articles as sources. Would a paper from a study be more preferable? Would a scroll inscribed by the pope himself be more acceptable?
Sources are necessary for a debate like this because we can objectively prove something. But that requires study. Which leads to reports about the studies that everyone (including your precious classes) base their knowledge off of.
Edited:
Oh and human behaviour is quite a complex thing. taking a class in it isn't going to help you understand it to the degree you would need to win an argument with no sources. That would require years of study, not just the average 2 or 3 years that most courses last.
-
You insist upon finding phrases to use that have no actual and defined significance.
These do not make you correct in any way.
-
Can you provide some more credible sources than peer reviewed scientific articles? More than prepared to use them if you tell me what they are
-
I'm not going to say it's a Gene but it's definitely not a choice. I have always been gay and never chose to be gay.
-
If you aren't going to debate properly, with facts and information, leave.
This is the real world, your whole logic thing is a strawman. If I write 'if you can push X and it goes faster than it was previously moving, then I can push it infinitely and go infinitely fast', it's logically sound, but I have no evidence for it, and it's wrong.
-
I Think Homosexuality Is More About Influence
-
Why Do You Think This?
-
I am very sorry i will never ever do again
(User was banned for this post ("This is not debating." - Megafan))
-
People Who Make Such Short Answers Like That Are Prone To Be (A Little) Ignorant, And Might Be Somewhat Close Minded
-
That's a very self-centered world view. Just because you didn't choose, doesn't exclude the possibility of others choosing.
We can choose practically all of our preferences to some extent. Musical taste, favourite movies, foods, etc. It's all mental properties.
So it's a matter of having a will and desire to learn and understand the positive aspects of aquired tastes. I don't see why sexuality should be the exception.
-
I personally think it's just based on the way you were raised. Same with porn fetishes and such. Some people might like BDSM, and some of us just look at it like, what the hell? Some people might like watching some helpless Asian woman get her boobs milked, and most people don't like that probably. The point is, it's not really an option or a gene, if you grew up in a family of guys and had only guy friends as you grew up you may be more attracted to guys than anything. Just depends.
-
Your unsupported opinion is not debating.
-
Why do you even give a shit, its like asking if your job preference is a gene.
-
I think it's both.
I mean, there could be people with a "homosexual gene" and there could be people who just chose to be so. There's room for all in the wonderful world of Earthland, where the beavers live and the sun occasionally shines!
