God has no gender (For RM in particular but will accept another user)
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
Con won in definitions - pro intended the debate to be unwinnable by arguing gender means sex, con argued gender means the general interpretation of gender as defined.
On this count, despite pros rant that he doesn’t care what gender means according time the dictionary, he did little to change the debate away from pros characterization. As a result, con characterized gender to his advantage and wins the debate.
The two ancilliary points to raise based on pros argument: are that gender is a social construct, so no one can truly have it. This smacks of grasping at straws here - and pro refutes himself twice: first by arguing “no one has gender - other than....” the other than is important as it means that pro agrees that there is a way for God to have Gender; second by admitting that we monkeys appear Gods gender. Both would appear to negate the resolution in the way pro presents gender.
Pro also shoots himself in the foot by admitting that the meaning of the word has been redefined - implying the meaning has changed.
Pro has to offer a clear definition of gender, and a clear argument for why God - namely RMs God doesn’t have a Gender. Pro doesn’t really do either, which means con wins this.
Sources:
Con wins on sources here, as he hammers down pros argument with each successive definition. These sources build his definition into a broad and authoritative definition that was next to impossible for pro to challenge. Pro was playing catch up, with him being unable to produce any sources that appeared to bolster his warrant. Whilst con offered multiple dictarkomary definitions, pros only relevant argument that utilized a source was his definition of gender incorporating sex, which required a broad and overtly favourable interpretation to mean what pro claims it does - as a result, con hardened his position immensely with sources, and pros sources made almost no difference to hisnwarrant.
Sources to con