Fire in the comments huh.
"In order to debate, you must not attack me for my speech.
If you attack me for my speech, then there is no debate.
If at any point you prevent my speech, there is no debate."
Same goes for my speech which you call an attack.
"If you claim otherwise, then you deny body rights of a child, thus you deny free speech of a child, thus you deny child from debating, thus you make it impossible to prove true your position in a debate because you banned some of your opponents from making their case and thus made debate impossible and with it, made your position unprovable."
The rights of a child or minor are represented by the parent or legal guardian by law that has delegated such party to act in authority in decisions, final decisions and actions for the represented.
We can keep going in circles. Adults are not minors. It's not a meaningless statement but it is one you can't refute.
"If people own others, then thats slavery.
Thus, people cannot own others.
Because people cannot own others, they also cannot deny others of ownership of their own body.
Thus, at no point can anyone dictate if other person gets to own their body or not.
So you cannot dictate if children own their bodies, thus you cannot own children nor make decisions for them.
If you, however, get to dictate if person owns their body or not, then so do I, and then by mere opposite views, a contradiction in your ideology appears."
This is so easy to debate. Adults are not minors.
I mean just to stay on topic. You're trying to make them equal, that's your problem.
"You cannot logically resolve the question of which adult gets to dictate child's body and why."
The law of the land, law of the state already has. I'll reiterate,
The rights of a child or minor are represented by the parent or legal guardian by law that has delegated such party to act in authority in decisions, final decisions and actions for the represented.
All that ideology rhetoric, throw that out. We're not talking ideologies, we're talking laws.
This is another suggestion among others I have recommended in regards to arguing for your case, setup an argument to refute why the laws should be for minors the way they are now. In terms of legal consent, legal representation and legal authority given to legal guardianship.
This is the only way you're going to prove that adults are to be equal to minors. If it's sufficient to make a change legally, you would have proven your case .
Each topic related to this, you have failed to do this. The definition of your insanity is you doing the same thing over and over thinking the result will be different which would be a successful refutation.
"For example, if its parents, why parents? If its government, why government?
And how is the reason you provide here not arbitrary?
If its for benefits, again, who decides what are benefits and what are not?
Because if I get to decide, then I decide that there are benefits in letting trans children be the gender they want to be, thus I win a debate."
This is so easy to debate. If you can't say anything here to actually petition to change the law, you haven't proven your case.
The rights of a child or minor are represented by the parent or legal guardian by law which is government that has delegated such party to act in authority in decisions, final decisions and actions for the represented.
It's not arbitrary or random because we know, let us not pretend, we know as folks in the comments, adults are not minors. We have countless observations, scientific studies , surveys, data and as we see in life in general that a minor , a child , a baby , a newborn has to be cared for due to a lack of agency, wherewithal for survival to ensure best welfare.
Fully mature adults that have all these elements that minors don't will be granted access to a responsibility of caring for the minor. The law has this setup or else society collapses.
"And why would anyone else get to decide what are benefits?"
Simple. It's called anyone whom would know best. It's no different than an insurance agent that can decide what benefits are to an uninformed prospect.
"I could simply declare that I am the smartest, thus do I get to deny everyone else of body rights?"
No you have to back it up with what you know and it's been proven that adults know more and have more experience of life than any minor.
So to look at minors like they can make decisions like any adult that have half , less or no experience is a non sequitur.
"You cannot prove that I am not the smartest, because if I was the smartest, everyone else would be way below me in intelligence, thus unable to meassure my intelligence, thus unable to prove that I am not smartest, but also wouldnt understand any argument I use to explain why I am the smartest, thus I would fullfill my burden of proof even if you claim I didnt."
It can be proven you are an adult if you actually are and not a minor thus proving you're level of intelligence, acuity in judgment and mental , physical, practical and even financial wherewithal.
Exception would be a special needs adult which is equal or more so equal to a minor contingent on medical assessment which would too also require legal competent guardianship.
"However, my position, where no one is allowed to dictate someone else's body, already answers question about who gets to dictate: no one."
Then by this logic laws shouldn't exist to dictate non criminal citizenship. Rules shouldn't exist from legal guardians over children to dictate proper acceptable behavior. Rules shouldn't exist anywhere to dictate the same in conduct and code.
Please consider all of this upon making your argument. You're arguing insufficiently to the point of what appears to be just complete individual autonomy. Which does not work in all cases if we're talking about sustaining society.
You're pushing children to be transgender according to them alone based on some perceived happiness or benefit is that correct?
The legal guardians should have nothing to do with their decision, the child should be regarded as an adult is that right?
"Thus, it is only logical that no one gets to dictate if person owns their own body, since this is a position without contradiction and without need to explain who gets to dictate."
Yes you're trying to argue universal or uniform autonomy . So you the opposing side has to prove that a minor, a child is equal to a mature adult in every mental capacity or you forfeit.
"Since not allowing trans children to be the gender they want to be is an action (not a lack of action) which contains harm by hurting those children both emotionally and even physically, it is not the best action.
However, allowing trans children to be the gender they want to be is a lack of action. Thus, it causes no harm, since a lack of action cannot cause anything, since cause requires existence, while lack of action is simply non-existence of action.
To go against this logic would yield absurd results.
For example, if you claimed that lack of action causes bad things, then you would be responsible for all bad things in the world by mere lack of action to prevent them.
Thus, if not preventing something makes you responsible for it, then you are responsible for all evil in the world.
So such logic obviously doesnt work."
More lengthy rambling rhetoric. Is it your position that a minor should be allowed to be transgender based on his or her decision alone?
Is it your position that a minor is to be allowed to do whatever he or she wants?
Yay I won
Regardless of the votes, the votes that opposed, unfortunately, society and government, particularly in the U.S. does not agree with you.
Basically it's why many of you that opposed are not in office. The majority of parents and sound adults will not vote for your policies.
how can you FEEL like a gender? "woman" is not an emotion
Adults already vote for bad people. Almost every president is bad and corrupt. So if making bad choices is a basis for taking away choices, you would take away choices from over 90% of the people.
Parents dont have "the right" to vaccinate a child any more they have right to vaccinate other adults, since it is not allowed to violate people's bodies even if its beneficial. For example, it is wrong to rape a woman to make her pregnant, even if it is beneficial for society.
If you say that those more educated get to decide, then you are arguing for a dictatorship of one most educated person over all of society.
There is no level of education which lets you violate other people's bodies. Are you allowed to rape a woman if you are smarter than her?
You say parents pay taxes for a child, but what does that have to do with anything? If some criminals asked me to pay money because you exist, it wouldnt mean I own you. So if state asks you to pay money because your child exists, it still doesnt follow that you own a child.
Even if state registers a child as your property, it still doesnt follow that child is a property, unless you believe people are allowed to register other people as property.
Further, just because you get blamed for what your child does, doesnt follow that that is a correct way. That would be "is = should" fallacy.
Again, you say that adults cant make mistakes, but all major mistakes in history were made by adults.
So again, if you want to take away choices because person will make a mistake, you have to take away choices from adults and install a dictatorship of one smartest person who wont make any mistakes.
To be able to have free speech, person must be able to control own body in any way person wants, as free speech is not just about giving information. To be able to give information which person wants to give and when and where person wants to give, person must be allowed to receieve information in a voluntary way, must be allowed to move, must be allowed to choose if and when person wants to talk, person must be allowed to explore and learn, person must be allowed to engage in voluntary trade. Not allowing any of these violates free speech, thus violates debate, thus these are basic truths which you must accept to even have a debate to begin with.
Thus, to have free speech, person must be able to move, to trade, to learn, to explore, to own property recieved from voluntary trade and to own their own body.
If person wasnt allowed to move, person would not be able to practice free speech in a way person wants.
If person wasnt allowed to trade, person wouldnt be able to get what they want, thus informations would be limited.
If person wasnt allowed to learn in a voluntary way what person wants to learn, person again wouldnt be able to practice free speech in a way person wants.
If person wasnt allowed to own property, then not only would person's sustain be a problem, but also research would be a problem.
If person doesnt own their own body, then free speech is again in danger because when someone else makes decisions for you about what you are allowed to do, about which actions you are allowed to do, it affects your ability to say what you want, but also affects ability to learn what you want.
Besides, assuming that you can make choices instead of children doesnt stop at mere ban of gender identity, but expands in all other areas due to problem of consistency, thus violating free speech completely.
So there is no way to own someone else's body and make decisions about it without violating free speech and thus violating debate and thus making your position in debate impossible to prove correct since your very position, if realized, violates debate.
"Most children can vote"-> They wouldn't do as good a job as adults. They would vote the wrong people and for the wrong causes.
"Child's body belongs to a child.So who is the only one who gets to vote about what child does with own body?The child"-> That is not true, let me explain. A child has its own body, yet parents still have the right to vaccinate it. Why? So that the child is protected from diseases which is a good enough reason and its the same thing with voting. Parents and adults vote because they are supposedly more educated and can be trusted to vote the correct things that benefit them as well as their children
"Is child your property? No."-> Until the child can be legally emancipated, it is to an extent. The child is registered under the parents's name, parents pay taxes for them, just like you would do for a house you own. They are obviously not material objects and are not associated with money, yet the parents somewhat own it. If a child murdered someone, the parents would be to blame, not the children themselves(i'm talking about pre-teens mostly), just like if a house caught on fire, the person who owned it would be notified in order to restore it.
"However, with non-aggression principle, you get to educate people so they dont make a mistake, but also they grow intellectually"-> You take precautions so that people don't make mistakes. The precaution in this case is educating the child before it becomes an adult and therefore a member of society, with which he beomes fully responsible of his actions and has to fulfill certain obligations. Only until they reach adulthood, will they be educated enough to prevent mistakes. Intellect prevents mistakes from happening, you gain intellect through making mistakes but certain mistakes are major and should be avoided. Adults are provided education and the necessary tools to prevent mistakes. Children are not provided that and even if they are, lack of maturity wouldn't allow them to understand
Most children can vote. The fact that society doesnt let them to has nothing to do with ability to vote.
Child's body belongs to a child.
So who is the only one who gets to vote about what child does with own body?
The child.
To put it simply, you can only get a vote to decide about something if that something is your property.
Is child your property? No.
You mention major mistake, but adults make major mistakes too.
However, with non-aggression principle, you get to educate people so they dont make a mistake, but also they grow intellectually.
Again, you cannot make a decision about child's body instead of a child without violating child's free speech, and that would be making your position in this debate false.
Besides, I doubt many children have enough money to pay for gender surgery, so that mistake would likely be only in very small percentage.
Children can't vote, that's a fact. Does that mean we're infringing on their free speech? Absolutely not, it's just that some decisions are up to adults, because adults are usually more mature and responsible than children.
Yeah well a mistake like the one i mentioned is quite major and as i explained would be hard to recover from. It would take lots of money for there to even exist a chance to revert your genitals to what they were physically but also the transition from one gender to another would take great amounts of time and effort. Figuring out that the gender most suitable for you is the one you were given all along is not worth spending thousands on surgeries and sacrificing years of your life due to the confusion.
The only other option is that children are slaves and then your position in debate violates free speech because slavery violates free speech.
People at any age can make mistakes. You learn from mistakes, so its beneficial regardless.
Children are not allowed to make such decisions as children. Imagine if a child decided he wanted to change genders and did gender reassignment surgery. What if he changed his mind 10 years later? It would be a very difficult process to go back to the gender it used to be, both physically and mentally.
Mall was winning until that last argument. Korea is crushing it now.
->USA has similar suicide rate as it did 1950, so what are you saying?
This I'm not sure about.
->Not always. Most criminals and people who committed suicide had some severe traumas. It did not make them better. It just hurt them.
Those people had too much trauma. There is such a thing as too much trauma. But there is also such a thing as too little trauma. If you never get stressed out in your life, then you never are truly grateful for anything
"It was much more common back in the day."
USA has similar suicide rate as it did 1950, so what are you saying?
"Trauma makes you a better person."
Not always. Most criminals and people who committed suicide had some severe traumas. It did not make them better. It just hurt them.
->There is plenty of mocking based on looks in modern countries, probably more than anywhere else. It does not lower suicide rates.
It was much more common back in the day.
The harder your life is, the more resilient you are to stimuli X compared to someone who endures Stimuli X who never had it as tough as you did.
Lets say there are 2 students; one of them is Student A; Straight A student and works very hard in school; the other is Student B; someone that works just as hard as Student A but gets grades ranging from 60 to 90. They take the SAT and they both get 1100. Student A is way more upset at their score and is more likely to turn suicidal than Person B.
I know this 1st hand; when I was in HS, my math grades were always 93 or better. I get a bunch of very bad math grades in college for HW assignments, and it initially lowered my self esteem. But then I got used to it and now I can get a 50 on a HW assignment and it doesn't ruin my self esteem like it would have if I was getting 100s on all my HW assignments consistently.
Trauma makes you a better person. Sometimes you can get too much trauma (rape victims), but if you work hard and fail a bunch of times, then you are more grateful when you actually do well compared to if you always do well.
"And Modern countries have thinner skins"
But mocking them wont change that. There is plenty of mocking based on looks in modern countries, probably more than anywhere else. It does not lower suicide rates.
->Or they would develop depression from being mocked.
Then tell them to not be depressed about it.
->Modern countries have lots of mocking based on looks, and lots of suicides as well.
And Modern countries have thinner skins than the 20th century. There was actual racism during the days of segregation and few blacks committed suicide. Now there is significantly less common racism (if there is anything significant) and blacks are suiciding themselves much more often. Thin skins produce suicide; not society being rude.
Like, I'm LGBT with a brother that knows and he has made fun of me for it. If I was sensitive about it, then I might have ended my life. But I have a thick skin, so I used it to toughen me up.
"They would then look better, go to the gym, do pushups instead of take medical pills, and be much more confident with themselves."
Or they would develop depression from being mocked. Modern countries have lots of mocking based on looks, and lots of suicides as well.
->And how would you telling them that and calling them ugly make them less suicidal?
They would then look better, go to the gym, do pushups instead of take medical pills, and be much more confident with themselves.
->People arent going to magically become tough just because you tell them to and call them ugly.
True, but people will be tougher if you try to install thick skin values in our kids.
Our coddling public school system should stop saying, "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything." and the alternative message, "Sticks and stones break bones, but words don't harm you."
Thick skins allow liberty to flourish. Thin skins cause feelings and snowflakes to flourish.
People argue that YOU violate the "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything." clause by advocating for pedophilia, which society views as being very mean to kids (whether you agree with this or not; might makes right and society has the might). YOU, the pedophille supporter, have a vested interest in thinking the skin up in our society so society is less willing to censor you for your extremely unpopular pro-pedophillia opinions.
"Then tell people to grow thick skins."
And how would you telling them that and calling them ugly make them less suicidal? People arent going to magically become tough just because you tell them to and call them ugly.
Suicide is really a last resort. Usually, people would try and improve their situation before they do that. You want less suicide? Then tell people to grow thick skins. The Suburbs are where snowflakes go to melt!
There is no any guarantee of long term benefits of calling someone ugly. It might even drive people to suicide or self harm.
Calling someone ugly (if it's genuine) could encourage them to work on their appearance, making them look better.
If you want me to tell a generic homeless guy that he's handsome, then I would refuse.
Short term pain is acceptable for long term gain.
"You tell an ugly person they are beautiful, they never change. You tell an ugly person they are ugly, they might change."
Its very unlikely that calling someone ugly would turn him beautiful, but it is very likely it would hurt them emotionally.
You tell an ugly person they are beautiful, they never change. You tell an ugly person they are ugly, they might change.
I am a blunt person and I like it when people are blunt with me; I care more about the truth than what feels good. Thick skins develop a free society; thin skins and the concern for feelings make people censor people that support pedophillia like yourself.
YOU have a vested interest in wanting people to have thick skins.
What about useless and harmful truth? Calling someone ugly is harmful and useless, even if true. Telling them that they look good would make them happier and wouldnt hurt anyone, even if a lie.
I don't care about being agreeable; I care about honesty. It's why I trash every party; if I wanted to appease just conservatives or just liberals, then I would exclusively roast the other side. I prefer the painful truth to a feel good lie.
When things reach their prime, they begin to decline.
Thats mean lol
This argument wouldn't exist 5 years ago. Sadly, the world is far past its prime intellectually and you are the physical embodiment of that sentiment.
But if I see an ugly person and they tell me, "Please tell me I am beautiful.", then I would tell them, "No; you are not."
I would rather not bring up their looks.
Its really not immoral to say what you dont mean. If you see an ugly person, it would be immoral to tell them that they are ugly, since that would hurt them and brings no benefits, really.
That's grifting, something understandable if you have an opinion you know pretty much everyone hates (like you do with being pro pedophillia). But when you know a lot of people agree with you, then I think it's immoral to grift.
You can say things you dont believe if it avoids uncomfortable situations.
How can you believe Jennifer is a man and refer to Jennifer as, "she"?
"Should society be legally forced under legal prosecution to refer to Jennifer as she, or is society allowed to believe that Jennifer is a man (an opinion btw that is majoritarian in this country)?"
Society is allowed to believe that Jennifer is a man, but they should be respectful and refer to Jennifer as she, even if there are no legal obligations to do so.
Lets say there is Jimmy. 18 years old. Jimmy is a transwoman and Jimmy transitions to become Jennifer.
Jennifer believes they are a woman.
Should society be legally forced under legal prosecution to refer to Jennifer as she, or is society allowed to believe that Jennifer is a man (an opinion btw that is majoritarian in this country)?
This is more about not trying to stop them from being whatever they want to be.
There needs to be a process for me to call trans females females. I made the spreadsheet, probably posted it a dozen times. I'll end it to you if you want, but it's just gotten too repetitive on my end.