Female trans athletes have an unfair advantage

Pro's arguments were disjointed and repetitious. Pro failed to distinguish between "gender" and "gender identity"

Overall, a weak debate, but points go to Con.

Best Korea debated this like a fucking beast actually, others maybe fail to see it.

The key to a Con victory here is to separate fair from unfair advantages and explore what transwomen have in that regard.

Con irrefutably (Pro cowers and doesn't even rebuke) proves that age, height, strength and all sorts of things are already advantages that we let people of the same sex either exploit or alternatively to not exploit it, we separate based on results, not typological assumptions.

What Con is getting at, the whole debate, is that unless we are to force everyone to have the same bodies, everything is an advantage or disadvantage, so to speak. What defines 'unfair' is up to Pro to clarify, not Con.

Con intentionally never defines unfair and was clever to not do so, this let Pro forget they had to and have nothing to propel/catapult their case from or against as there were no semantics to pivot their burden of proof around.

[ ] - personal thoughts that are not judged based on

..

Resolution: "Female trans athletes have an unfair advantage"
With this resolution pro has it quite easy. Pro only has to prove that female trans athletes have an unfair advantage, in what? It doesn't matter; just that in general, trans athletes have an unfair advantage.

Burden is clearly on pro to prove the resolution.

..

Winners selection:

Round one - Pro
Pro gives one major piece in his first round: "Lia Thomas was ranked 200th as a male swimmer and won the national championship the first year she competed as a woman. She towered over her opponents and clearly had the male biological advantage"

No evidence fo support the male biological advantage or evidence from Lia Thomas winning national championship, I think these are all well known events and factors.

[I also considered the fact that nobody in this used direct evidence to link]

Round one - Con
This is where con contests the idea of the resolution.
I don't believe this factors into anything at all as the resolution itself makes it clear.

Round two - Pro
Pro proceeds by furthering themselves while also in the process rebuttaling.

Pro mentions that society itself has decided that men have an unfair advantage, given to them at birth, that creates an unfair advantage when competing.
Which I believe cuts it for pro. That's all pro really needed, that trans woman athletes have an unfair advantage.

However, i'll continue to judge, in case for rebuttals regarding the statment on biological unfair advantages or contesting it indirectly.

Round two - Con
Con gives that multiple people have unfair advantages at birth because we are all diverse.
However, this doesn't negate the fact trans woman athletes have an unfair advantage against biological woman.

Round two general:
[I did review his reflect at pro stating: "If sex no longer matters let ALL men and women compete together."
But it didn't seem to spark enough to review it as it becomes practically irrevelent due to con's statement]

Round three - Pro
Pro just restates differently, saying men shouldn't allow men to compete in woman's elite sports unless all men join in.
Which hences, would lead to, due to biological differences, the end for woman elite sports.

Round three - Con
Con talks about the factor that a transwoman can be just as smart as a biological woman, not smarter, not better in anyway. As of which they compared a ten year old to another ten year old. It will be slightly important later on in round four.

[I also find it a but contradicting being the fact they said we we're all diverse, but I get the point.]

Round four - Pro
Pro disregards concern for a ten year old rather than a high schooler or above.
This being because they might be competing for the following:

- Spot on the olympic or national team
- Endorsement deals
- Future professional sports

Round four - Con
Nothing much but trying to prove the point that a transwoman can get similar if not the same results to a biological woman.

Round five - Pro
Pro restates again about letting all men compete with woman, woman would not be able to compete, or in this case, win.
And does concede to the fact that a male athlete can have similar results to a biological woman athlete.

Round five - Con
This is where con's main point is shown again.

Some transwoman athletes can have similar results to woman athletes meaning that, those transwoman should be able to compete.

Overall Impression:
Pro gave the advantage transwoman athletes have and showed an example as proof of the biological difference. That was all there was to it. Con never directly contested this idea, though while some transgender peope can get similar results, that doesn't mean transgender men don't have biological advantages regardless. And this resolution doesn't say "all transgender athletes have an unfair advantage" but it's implied since it says "trans athletes" so we are to think in general terms. Trans athlete as a whole. But once again, I am to think that biologically, they (transwoman) still have the advantage over woman, even if they can get similar results.

I can have the advantage of getting a ten second headstart, but I can still lose the race.
Transwoman can have an unfair advantage biologically, but still manage to get similar scores.

The advantage is still there regardless of results.

In light of all that, pro has proved the advantage. Transwoman have an unfair biological advantage when competing against biological woman.

WINNER SELECTION: Pro.

Female trans athletes have an unfair advantage

The resolution is very clear. This is not something that requires immense linguistic or lexicological analysis. It is very res ipsa. It speaks for itself.

Pro has a ridiculously short opening, however, it is very effective. Shorter is often better when it is precise. “Lia Thomas was ranked 200th as a male swimmer and won the national championship the first year she competed as a woman.  “

While a source is not given, I accept that particular event as being well-known. Con does not contend that the event occurred. Con instead states that everything is an advantage or not, and the concept of unfairness is moot.

Pro nearly wins the debate when they state “We have decided as a society that the advantages men get biologically at birth would create an unfair advantage in competition with women.”

Con does not disagree with that. Con deflect by talking about advantages and disadvantages based on birth.

Con loses the debate with this statement “So in other words, you randomly pick what is fair and what is unfair.”

I accept Con’s concern that bundling all trans females together as an assumption that they will have an advantage is improper. However, the resolution does not say all. The example given gave the context. Con is skirting the issue and the evidence. One thing neither side did was address how one identifies as trans.

That was not what was said at all. Pro was very clear, gave a crisp example, and an explanation as to the distinction of Male and Female sex-based sport groups.

This is a clear Pro win.

I feel throughout this entire debate PRO didn't formally introduce their arguments with definitions. R1 Pro claims " She towered over her opponents and clearly had the male biological advantage"

But instantly drops this argument in R2 with "Some people are born with genetic advantages like height, strength or speed. We have decided as a society that within your sex we do not classify those as unfair advantages". :(

Additionally PRO jumps a bit to conclusions in args.

Let's look at R2:

"If sex no longer matters let ALL men and women compete together" (there is no founding/development of this claim, just outright said".

However, CON's args have thorough founding:

"No. What matters is the category by results. For example, 7 year old will not compete against a 20 year old, even if they have same sex. This is because we know that 20 year old would win almost every time. Therefore, the standards are set according to results, not according to some random picking.

Therefore, if female trans shows similar results as other females, there is no reason to not allow female trans to compete with those other females. If results are similar, there is no advantage for female trans. There are cases where results are similar. There are cases where there is no advantage for female trans.

It is nonsense to claim that every female trans is better than every female non-trans."

(through listing examples).

Similar case in R5:

"If we are going to eliminate sex as what divides competition then men and women should just compete together

Which would mean women never win championships again"

PRO doesn't define how women will never win the championships again through combining men and women.

Yet con:

"Well, sports are to be separated in groups by results.

Some trans female girls have similar results as non-trans female girls.

Therefore, no need to separate those trans female girls from non-trans female girls."

Clear P1, P2, and C1 here. Full points to CON.