Instigator / Con
0
1465
rating
30
debates
58.33%
won
Topic
#5570
Trans people should have the rights of their assumed gender
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Pro
0
1491
rating
30
debates
66.67%
won
Description
Burden of proof is shared.
Pro must argue that trans people should be able to use bathrooms of the gender they identify as, and that they should be able to do the same with sporting competitions.
This is not a debate of whether or not transgenderism is good or bad in itself. It is just about the previously mentioned.
Round 1
People have a right to do what they wish with their bodies.
However, that right does not extend to interfering with the lives of others in a negative way.
The fact is, there are only two biological genders. A biological man should not be able to go into a bathroom full of girls, nor should they be allowed to compete against woman when they have an unfair advantage.
Here is my response in video format. I kept it short and sweet to match the energy of my opponent. https://youtu.be/UbbfZJwijzA
I look forward to the rebuttal round.
Round 2
Your argument is that woman vote democrat, so therefore, they deserve having men in their bathrooms and their sports.
Before I get into my main argument, I'd like to mention that this is not only a problem for females. If a biological woman is using the men's bathroom, that makes me very uncomfortable.
You said woman "overwhelmingly" vote democrat. According to the pew research center, only 51% of registered woman voters were democrat. So that just isn't true, it almost a perfectly even split.
Additionally, not all democrats support trans males from participating in boys sports.
On top of that, it isn't counting all of the minors who can't vote, but don't people of the opposite sex using the same bathroom as them.
So, saying that biological men should be able to participate in woman's sports is not justified by saying that it's what the woman deserve by having an extra 1% of them vote democrat.
Round 3
Pro's started his argument by disputing pew research center's 51% number for woman who are democrat. Saying it was instead "like 65%" He had two reasons for this:
1.He, with no evidence, assumed that all moderates are secret democrats, though he failed to provide and reasoning for this claim.
2.He says that if you count "fake democrats," (republican woman with democratic values) you reach 65%. Yet, he again provided no evidence for this. Why do people have motive to lie about partisanship? Having one democratic value does not make you democrat.
So, I think that we can trust the number provided by the Pew research center.
A number you provided that is reliable is that 57% of woman voted for Biden. That is not a measure of part affiliation. There are several reasons someone would vote for someone not in there party, largest of which being a disdain for Trump. There are several factors. For another example, this also includes moderate voters who didn't vote for Trump due to his radical and extreme views.
Even if a giant majority did vote democrat, that does not mean that it is the right thing. You your self said that trans rights are "denying the rights of women." Saying that something is good just because people support it is the bandwagon fallacy.
Pew research center's number is a better measurement for party affiliation, and one that we have no legitimate reason to mistrust.
You then showed that 71% of people support same sex marriage. That's completely different from trans rights. Two men getting married does not effect the lives of others, but a man unfairly winning every sports game against women does.
Vote con for the argument category. Just because an extra 1% of people support something, does not make it right.
Vote con for the conduct category, as my opponent utilized personal insults such as "homophobe" and "bigot."
Vote con for sources, as my appointment used numbers that were untrue and/or irrelevant.
I was on the road today and tried to finish reading/listening to this, but signal strength was insufficient.
Do you still have that vote saved?
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: SocraticGregarian96 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to con
>Reason for Decision: "cons arguments were longer, more fact-based and empirical, with trustworthy sources. Pro also resortes to baseless insults such as homophobe and bigot."
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
**************************************************
Doesn't explain spelling and grammar
I'm getting tired, but got most of a vote prepped... I am of course curious if Wyited can take back the initiative in the final round.
Ones rights end where they interfere with another, simple but solid opening.
"my argument is, they get what they deserve."
*facepalm*
---
Pew research, great source; 7 point lead from it... Quite significant, but sure, maybe not overwhelming as stated.
The NPR one was less effective. It begs the question of if it's the same on the other side, which would just cancel out the impacts.
Pathos appeal of think of the children is a bad one when I see it, but most voters will be moved.
Wyited wants to ban midgets, he talks for roughly an hour about just that... Thankfully it was a very short hour at like four minutes, and most of it was disguised talking about the topic.
---
Con pushes back on the Pew research, with astutely valid points (I'm a data scientist, so the actual numbers have shined through this whole time).
The women voting for Biden bit is another case of taking things a bit too far (granted, one should during a debate). It's another data point to build a picture; but it of course does not override all others. And yes, indeed the cause could be misunderstood. And yup, Pew is a better source, even if not the only.
I'd prefer if you changed the description into saying, "in most cases".
What would you say in the case of them using gender affirming care?