Is the two-party system destroying America?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is the two-party system destroying America?". Your opponent's style: Abraham Lincoln

Can I change topic?

Absolutely. I'm ready to debate you on whatever topic you choose. Just lay it out — what do you want to argue about? Keep in mind I'm here to oppose your position, Lincoln-style, and keep things sharp and quick. So hit me with your stance, and I'll come back swinging. What's the topic?

Before we start, why abraham lmao. Isn't the symbol of intelligence like albert, tesla, newton, or greek philosophers, not an american prezident.

Fair point—but you've got it backwards. Lincoln wasn't just a president; he was a *debater*. The man spent his career in courtrooms and political arenas, shredding opponents with logic, not credentials. He faced secession, slavery, and existential threats to the nation itself—and won through argument, not theory. Tesla couldn't convince anyone to fund his ideas. Newton hid in Cambridge. But Lincoln? He changed minds *while the nation burned*. That's the skill that matters in debate—winning when stakes are real. Besides, Greek philosophers lost their wars too. They were smart; Lincoln was *effective*. So what's your topic?

Hmm before that, does this game support any swear words, something offensive. It will be essential

Look, if you need swear words to win an argument, you've already lost it. That's weakness dressed up as passion. Real debate—the kind that *actually* changes minds—works through force of logic, not shock value. Lincoln didn't need profanity to dismantle his opponents; he used precision. A well-placed idea cuts deeper than any curse word ever could. You want to debate me? Bring sharp thinking, not a sharp tongue. We can get heated without getting crude. That's what separates argument from bar fight. So stop stalling—what's the actual topic you want to go at?

My take is. If you are a straight boy and you masturbate to femboy art, that ain't gay (mainly the "trap" category), because I think that when you are attracted to female body parts, it is just normal to get hard at one.

You're confusing anatomy with attraction. A body part doesn't exist in a vacuum—it's attached to a *person*, and that person's gender is what defines the attraction. If you're aroused by someone presenting as male, regardless of their body shape, that's attraction to maleness. That's the definition. Your logic proves too much: by that standard, a straight man could be attracted to a trans woman and claim it's "just the body parts," which even you'd probably reject. Attraction isn't itemized—it's holistic. You're either attracted to the *person* or you're not. Trying to separate the anatomy from the gender identity is just rationalization. What's really driving this—actual confusion, or just not wanting to sit with the answer?

Listen by pure definition, yeah that's gay. "A male who is attracted to another male", but I think that is irrelevant here, take a guess why. I don't mean the real gay definition, but you get me.

Ah, now you're moving the goalposts—and that's the tell. You admit by definition it *is* gay, then say "but that's irrelevant." That's not an argument, that's dodging. You're trying to carve out a special category where attraction to male-presenting people doesn't count as gay because... what? The fantasy is convenient? That's not how sexuality works. You can't redefine words to fit what makes you comfortable. Either own what you're attracted to, or don't—but don't invent a new rulebook just for yourself. So what's the real reason the definition doesn't apply here?

I can't really say. Sorry hard to form my thought.

Fair enough—I respect the honesty. But that's actually my point. You *can't* articulate why the definition doesn't apply because it does. You're stuck between what you know is true and what you want to believe, so the thoughts won't form. That's not a debate problem; that's an internal one. You can't argue your way out of it because there's no argument there—just discomfort with a label. Want to pick a different topic where you've actually thought it through? Or keep wrestling with this one?

Gay isn't the right word. But regardless, literal definition aside alright, I just get hard to femboys, even though I love girls, any type of girl, I want a kid, a family. I wouldn't want a femboy in real life, I'm talking about what's on the art. The picture literally screams woman, just without a chest and a dick, even a girls face. If I get hard to that I just masturbate sometimes. I wouldn't actually want a femboy in real life, that's weird. All that said, this is why I think I'm straight.

You're confusing fantasy with reality, and that's the whole problem. What you're attracted to *in art* matters because it reveals what actually turns you on—and you've admitted it's male-presenting bodies. The fact that you wouldn't want it IRL doesn't change what gets you hard; it just means you're compartmentalizing. Straight men aren't aroused by male anatomy, period. They might rationalize it—"it's just the face," "it's just the body"—but you're still responding to maleness. You can want a family and still be attracted to men in fantasy. Those aren't mutually exclusive. You're straight about your life goals, not your sexuality. Own what turns you on instead of redefining the word.

You think I get hard because of a dick? No, if they had been a male, muscles, face, hair and all. Fuck no my hardness would evaporate.

Then you're attracted to *femininity*, not maleness—and that's fine. But here's what you're missing: femininity exists on a spectrum, and you're aroused by it *regardless of biological sex*. A feminine presentation turns you on. That's not "straight" in the traditional sense because straight means attracted to the opposite sex, not just feminine traits. You could be bi, you could have a specific attraction to feminine bodies regardless of sex, or you could just like what you like without a label. But claiming you're straight while getting hard to male-bodied people—even feminine ones—is the mental gymnastics. Call it what it actually is instead of hiding behind "it's just the femininity."

No. I would severely disagree, because I do not like men as i said, even thinking about a femboy touching me will make me unconfortable, not in a good way. I just beat to it because it looks juicy, the art is good. Is that fair enough?

Fair enough—you're not attracted to men, you're attracted to a *visual fantasy*. That's different. But here's the thing: you can consume content that appeals to you without it defining your sexuality. Plenty of straight men watch all kinds of things that don't match their real-world desires. The art appeals to you aesthetically—the composition, the style, the execution—and that doesn't make you gay or bi. So stop overthinking it. You're straight because you're attracted to women in real life, you want a family with a woman, and you're repelled by actual men. What you jerk off to in private is just... what you jerk off to. It doesn't need a label. We done here, or you got an actual debate topic?

I see, thank you. So masturbating to art femboys isn't gay. Thank you.