"Um... no - we have a shared burden of proof - you must prove that you are right, and that I am wrong."
Yes, I have my own onus. And I've chosen to negate your affirmation of the proposition by arguing in favor of individuality. That does not mean that every assertion you make stands until you're proven wrong. That's fallacious and I won't hesitate to point it out. I can criticize your assertions for their lack of substantiation (e.g. psychology = neuroscience) without providing a counterpoint. Pointing out and explaining the lack of substantiation is enough. My burden is to substantiate my negation of your affirmation. And I will proceed accordingly.
"There is no "have and eat your cake" there is a BoP that must be fulfilled."
I wasn't referring to our onuses. I was referring to your argument. You are trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Your supposed empirical arguments undermine your abstract arguments. But we'll flesh that out in Round Three.
"Specifically? Your sophistry points, it kinda buys into your own hype, remember how I pointed out that RAA, same thing here. You need to lay your own framework better, as it stands, you aren't the best of formatting your objections nor tying them in."
Not necessarily. You're operating under the impression that I first have to negate and argue a counterpoint to substantiate my objection. I don't have to prove you wrong; you have to prove you're right. And you have yet to do so. I'm negating your point by arguing in service of individuality, an argument you've unwittingly help me make. You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. No worries, I'll make this explicitly clear in our next round.
"Wow - people think I have a temper but its nothing compared to yours, right?"
I don't have "a temper." My use of caps has nothing to do with "shouting." The comments section doesn't have an embolden function, so I instead use caps. In all cases, I use caps and the embolden function to emphasize a point, not to "shout" at what are essentially letters on a computer screen.
"Furthermore the fact that government treats black people worse? Yeah - that has literally nothing to do with this."
Where did I suggest this? Why would I bring up "treating worse," when I made sure to include it among the exclusions when first starting my argument?
"Furthermore, I didn't even mention anything about my argument in relation to yours - I merely noted that your argument regarding the function of the hypothalamus was quite superficial - just think some more."
"Race and gender aren't comparable - we've been over this"
You opened the door when you made reference to multiracial individuals experiencing low self-esteem as result of a government form. If they aren't "comparable," you have exhibited poor methods in demonstrating that. And I do understand, or at least grasp, that which you insinuate when you made reference to the hypothalamus, but IT'S UP TO YOU, AND YOU ALONE, to substantiate it's connection to and qualification of self-identification.
And if you read carefully, I did not "assume" you couldn't do this; I specifically stated that you have "yet" to do it. Again, I welcome your attempt.
It's neither "weak" nor "superficial." I would intend for nothing more than to avoid a contest over sources, especially one where the citations are irrelevant and inapplicable. And no, my response wasn't "semantic," (which by the way is a useless jab given that the setting demands that we stipulate the definitions on which we base our arguments.) It's conceptual. For example, if I were to propose, "A person is their 'race,' and ought to be treated as the so-called 'race" with which they identify" the first begged question would be "how is this self-identification with this so-called 'race' identifiable to others?" And the second question is "how does one treat another in accordance to their self-identification with their so-called 'race?" So, how does one identify another's self-identification with gender, not sex? How does one treat another in the appropriate manner, keeping that self-identification with gender in mind? How do we standardize and/or normalize this response? You will have to answer these questions in order to satisfy your B.O.P., or more to the point, I will make sure to demand that you answer these questions in order to satisfy your B.O.P.
The transfer to philosophy is fine. The resolution to his proposition is necessarily abstract. Theweakeredge attempted to elide this in his attempt to link the physicality of the brain to one's sense of self. I have no intention of regurgitating other people's opinions, i.e. citing social theory. The route I've chosen is to compel my opponent to resolve his resolution by identifying the object of his prescriptive response. I welcome his attempt at refutation.
First, you haven't seen anything from my arguments, because I've yet to submit one. Second, I do not need to "debunk" your argument, because you already have. I continue to drop hints, but I won't spoon-feed it to you. I'll say it again: remember your proposition; remember your definitions; remember your burden. Once you've appreciated exactly that which your proposition conveys, you'll realize that your burden is far more difficult than you thought. And it can't be resolved by neurological studies, or threats of suicide, and the like. But I'll make sure to explicitly point out the flaws in your argument once I've submitted my post.
The focus of this debate isn't whether sexual dimorphism has been observable since the early Greeks. Theweakeredge, remember your proposition; remember your definitions; remember your burden. The early Greeks won't help, and neither will your citations referencing the minute structural differences in the brain structures of transgendered individuals. Perhaps in the intermittent period, it'd be more prudent to go over your description as well as your argument again.
I appreciate the nod, but I wouldn't have accepted this debate assuming the role of Con. "Allowed" is different from "treat." And I wouldn't object to transgenders participating in Sports.
"I think your grasping at straws - it doesn't take into account my response at all"
No, I am not. I said "tidbit." I don't agree with everything bmdrocks21 said, but there's an astute query present which even if you did your due diligence to find would still not change your capacity to resolve it. It would behoove you to read over his statements, again.
There's a very astute tidbit in your statements, there, bmdrocks21. I wonder if it will present any concerns for my opponent as this debate progresses.
"Well, he's probably going to argue that nobody owes anybody any obligations - maybe he'll talk about the part before that - but he's gonna focus on the moral obligation bit.
I think - and don't quote me here - that his position as an individualist means that moral obligations aren't a thing."
I could argue that, but that isn't the biggest problem in your argument.
"Interesting... so it would be like saying a non scientific topic that is heavily resolved, but doesn’t mean that people should treat it a specific way."
It isn't about whether the scientific topic is resolved. Notice his definitions, and notice his argument. Is gender, for example, necessarily "scientific"? And if it's not, then what's the relevance of scientific analysis? When one prescribes that one be treated a PARTICULAR WAY, that begs a question, doesn't it? I can't reveal everything, but dig deeper.
"but... if Transgender right arguments are psychological/neurological, what's the difference between evidence for evolution and evidence for transgender?"
Again, this is not about Transgender "rights." We are not arguing over their legal privileges or any deprivation with respect to the Constitution--or any other nation's itemized list of recognized rights. It's about substantiating whether a trans person is who said person identifies as, AND the extent to which they are owed behavior from others that reflects this identification.
This is the difference between legally recognizing "gay marriage" and prescribing that Christians, who for the sake of argument, "treat" homosexual unions as anything other than an "abomination." That is not the same. I'm focusing strictly on the proposition. I'm not focusing on the psychology/neuroscience (by the way pyschology =/= neuroscience) nor am I focusing on Evolution.
I assume you wouldn't. Why then would you have argued in that manner if you realized your mistakes beforehand?
You were so focused on arguing cosmetically, and arguing against arguments yet to be made that you've considered neither the complexity nor nuance of this issue. You may assume that my response to you is going to be "No, trans-people are not, and ought not to be treated as the gender which they identify as." Not necessarily. There's more than one way to negate the affirmation of your proposition, and you'll see it once I respond.
"In my opinion, that would still be similar to saying "we ought to treat Evolution as True", which is only one step away from "evolution is true"."
Except the veracity of (place scientific concept or phenomena here) is not contingent on how it's "treated." It's contingent on its capacity to be verified scientifically. That is not the same, however many "steps" your opinion considers. Again, as a surveillant, you must be conscientious about the arguments being made, not your impressions.
"to Athias: I've done enough research to know that Pro Trans Right arguments are as rigorous as the evidence for theory of Evolution, if not Anti-Flat Earth or Pro-Old Earth theory."
Except the subject of this debate isn't Pro vs Anti Trans "Rights," whatever those are supposed to be. It's "Trans-people are, and ought to be treated, as the gender they identify as." So the questions which must be resolved are: (1) Are trans people the gender to which they identify? and (2) Are they owed a response which reflects the gender to which they identify?
"This is gonna be a really, really hard debate."
Actually, it won't be. As thoughtful and meticulous as Theweakeredge was, his Round 1 argument is largely unfocused. He has issues with his definitions, there's a lot of irrelevant fluff, his syllogism is nonsensical, there is a conflict in the proposition itself, and he employs emotional blackmail to substantiate his claim that others have an obligation to treat trans people as their identified gender otherwise they'll "kill themselves."
His strongest argument perhaps is in the comparison between brain structures, but because of his definitions, it's irrelevant. Undefeatable, if you're going to be a conscientious surveillant, then you must understand that which is being argued.
I still have some time, so I'll respond at my leisure.
Because the trend dictates that women in comparison to men are overwhelmingly the stay-at-home parent. It's a presumption that leaves out stay-at-home fathers, but isn't a bad presumption.
Reading the proposition, the subject is not as clear-cut the "Holocaust's being bad" or the universe's being a tetrahedron. But I suppose I'll just have to demonstrate that when the debate begins.
You're going to have to play it by ear. I suppose one could still follow the guidelines just to avoid the meddling of the moderators (note: RationalMadMan did propose that this Rap Battle be un-moderated.) Use your discretion.
Let me guess: you agree with RationalMadMan's arguments, but you think that I have the better flow? I don't really know the procedure when it concerns voting on rap battles. I assume it would be somewhat different from a regular debate in that "Rap Battles" I presume focus more on one's rap skills (otherwise what's the point?) But at the end of the day, voters vote however they like. So, vote however you like, sir.
""Oh yeah because no government is yet doing a perfect job thus the concept of government itself is bad!"
Wait till you hear that Anarchism can't even reach the glory of government-based society. In fact, anarchism will either die out or there will be a leader, which turns into a government."
Are you trying to engage me in a discussion over a lyric, or is the part you quoted merely your impression of my position?
A two-week time for argument and a one-month voting period, could possibly take us to the next quarter, but what the heck? With the time allotted, I'm sure you'll put your best arguments forward. Good luck.
If there are any more rules and stipulations to be hashed out, perhaps it'd be more "economical" to discuss them here as opposed to a debate round. Otherwise, I'm ready when you are.
"That you think we're having a pissing contest is a strange analogy to pop into your mind..."
It's not strange at all. As a moderator, it falls within your function to presume that you "know better." How else would you assume to moderate the behavior of others if you didn't. And I would assume that on occasion, you'll come across select individuals who take it upon themselves to presume the same thing--they "know better." And on occasion, they do. So how does this pertain to our interaction? I'm not presuming to know or care how to moderate the behavior of others. But there is one thing I'm certain I know, and that's logic. And yes, I know logic "better" (more consistent) as far as I can gauge from my interactions and discussions with you. Your presumption to "know better" and my presumption to "know better" have come into conflict; hence "pissing contest." And this is not mitigated by the fact you have a title.
"You chose to add questionable extra points to your vote, causing it likely be deleted if reported."
It wasn't questionable; your questioning my allotment doesn't make it "questionable." Here, let's bring up, once again, the voting standard as it pertains to sources:
"To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's."
And now, let's look at my RFD as it concerned the sources' point allotment:
"Better Sources: I awarded the sources point to CON. Citing sources is not about quantity, but relevance. PRO cites an "expert paper" on the fossil record and the "97% consensus by scientists" on the Theory of Evolution, but fails to demonstrate its relevance to the affirmation of his proposition. (It should be noted that consensus doesn't determine veracity.) The argument over which they debate is not "Evolution vs Creation." It's "The Problem of Evil Makes it Unreasonable to Believe in the Christian God." CON however made specific references to Biblical text which informs his contention. Point awarded to CON."
What part of this description doesn't meet the criteria listed above? Don't bother answering because it's rhetorical. You won't find a part. You know why? BECAUSE I HAD ALREADY READ THE RULES. And I also read the debate in its entirety, as well as each source provided.
"Someone reported it (actually multiple someones), and someone gave feedback to the main vote moderator explicitly questioning the validity of the source allotment."
Well of course if "multiple someones" reported it, it necessarily means there was something wrong; good to know you focus on quantity rather than quality. And I'm sure Undefeatable has no stake in explicitly questioning the validity of an allotment that was against his favor. (Didn't you once accuse me of the same?)
"Unsurprisingly, it was then deleted."
Oh, your interpretations don't "surprise" me, either.
"Lots of votes get deleted. Even I've had some of my votes get deleted."
So you mean, I'm not alone in this? I feel much better...
Please, Ragnar, as if it that would be the source of my contention. This is a matter of logic and decorum.
My apologies, but I won't be voting again. I gather that Ragnar, and to a lesser extent, MisterChris, will attempt to continue this implicit "pissing contest" with me. It's rather unfortunate, you did have the better argument.
If you have concerns with my vote, do me the courtesy of addressing them with me, first. I would've obliged in explaining to you the reason your sources were irrelevant.
Reading comprehension is obviously NOT your strong suit.
Here, I'll quote Fruit_Inspector verbatim:
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1)
God is an eternal spirit, an immaterial being not bound by time. He created all matter and energy, and even time itself. After creating stars and galaxies, plants and animals, He created human beings - not from evolved apes but purposefully and intentionally. HE MADE US IN HIS IMAGE; that is, we reflect the glory of God in the physical world as the moon reflects the light of the sun. As image-bearers of God, WE ARE ALSO MORAL BEINGS AND CAPABLE OF MAKING DECISIONS AND BEING HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM. God created us with an immaterial soul that is inextricably connected to our body, giving humans a dual nature. Humans are thus distinct from the rest of creation. Plants are not alive as we are. Animals are not held to a moral standard as we are. BUT THIS UNIQUE LIFE AND MORAL AGENCY ALSO GIVE US INHERENTLY DIGNITY AND VALUE THAT COMES FROM THE ONE WHOSE IMAGE WE BEAR. No other part of creation can claim such an honor as humans have in that regard."
Do you see how Fruit_Inspector uses text from the Bible to inform a moral standard? A subject which is pertinent to the proposition over which they argue as it concerns "THE PROBLEM OF EVIL..." and the claim that it qualifies the existence of God?
Now let's look at Undefeatable's response:
"In the beginning...
Notice how Con vouches for creationism, stating outright "not from evolved apes but purposefully and intentionally". We could have a debate over whether evolution is true or not, but the level of scholar evidence for evolution proves that it is one of the most rigorous scientific theories of all time. Even just one expert paper notes the fossil records, the common structures, the distribution of species, molecular biology, and gradual steps carefully shaping the incredibly complex world of today. Nearly 97% of scientists agree with the theory of evolution. On the other hand, there are next to no papers published on the strength of creationism. Clearly, con's assumption is absurd."
Not once did PRO address CON's point. He took CON's statement about "not from evolved apes but purposefully and intentionally" and argued at best a tangential subject where Evolution and Creationism are at conflict. Not only that, he cited a consensus which logically does not inform the veracity of an argument. So his citation is USELESS as it neither addresses the subject of their debate, nor inform the "truth" of his point.
The fact that it "SEEMED" (seem, by the way, is not an observation) to you that CON's argument must necessarily be off-topic because I characterized PRO's response as off-topic is an incredibly INEPT analysis. (Responses don't have to reflect the relevance of that to which they respond, as Undefeatable tactfully demonstrated.) And your mentioning the three points which govern awarding points on sources only informs that you read neither their debate, nor my RFD properly. You can delete my votes if you want--it's become habit by now--but DON'T HOLD ME RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR POOR READING COMPREHENSION.
This was an interesting read. Now on to my decision.
Conduct: They were both fairly the same here.
Spelling & Grammar: Again, fairly the same here.
Better Sources: I awarded the sources point to CON. Citing sources is not about quantity, but relevance. PRO cites an "expert paper" on the fossil record and the "97% consensus by scientists" on the Theory of Evolution, but fails to demonstrate its relevance to the affirmation of his proposition. (It should be noted that consensus doesn't determine veracity.) The argument over which they debate is not "Evolution vs Creation." It's "The Problem of Evil Makes it Unreasonable to Believe in the Christian God." CON however made specific references to Biblical text which informs his contention. Point awarded to CON.
Better arguments: this admittedly was a difficult proposition for PRO to affirm. He would have to demonstrate how the existence of a Christian God was contingent on the existence of evil. PRO doesn't do this AT ALL. PRO instead operates on the metric of "equality," utilitarianism, and a Buddhist Kharma System. PRO did make a substantial point about the sin of babies and animals, which goes unaddressed by CON, but once again fails to tie this to the affirmation of his proposition. CON on the other hand does a good job in describing the standards of good and evil as noted in the Bible, and maintaining that which informs God by standards of the Bible. PRO's failure to define "evil" and index it to an absolute moral standard, in my opinion, cost him this debate. It allowed CON to define the standard of evil in accordance to a moral to relativism where the Christian God is the sole arbiter. With all that considered, I award my vote in favor of Fruit_Inspector.
"I guess the premise is too difficult to prove as is. I need a more stringent topic to win my side."
Yeah, you do. Reliability is far too abstract. Without outlining the exact metric on which you choose to make the comparison, the substantiation of your position becomes that more difficult.
It shouldn't impact the debate. All the more reason to question the reason the question was posed to begin with. But given that I did promise that I would keep the commentary strictly focused on the content of the debate, let me congratulate you on a well-argued position. You, for the many reasons I already listed, were quite adept at identifying the onuses, and satisfying your own. Your arguments were concise, focused, and straight-to-the-point. Well done, Fruit_Inspector.
He's been oddly interested in *bumping* this debate, having done it several times and then deleting his comments afterwards. If I were to guess, his question--unprompted--would be yet another attempt at *bumping* this debate during the voting period. One would imagine that if you or oromagi were concerned with the content of the short description, you would've brought it to his attention. My response to these "antics" to my chagrin have been less than savory.
Let me apologize to you, and oromagi, if my feud with the moderation has flooded you with unnecessary notifications. From here on out, I'll keep the commentary strictly focused on the content of the debate.
""Predetermining the BoP" was something CON could have disputed, but he did not."
Neither party has to "dispute" the other person's conduct in order for it to be considered in a vote. If so, then please show me in the Voting Policy where it states that.
"There is no "unfairness" about something mutually agreed to, as long as neither party is being pressured by an outside factor."
When was it "mutually agreed"? You mean there's a tacit agreement made by both parties upon accepting the debate? Once again, according to the guideline, I DON'T HAVE to demonstrate that it was either "excessive" or in breech in of mutually agreed upon rules, so long as I can substantiate that it was unfair--an option discretely presented in the guideline, notably through the disjunction "OR."
"Your argument itself is nonsensical"
Your disagreement does not inform "nonsensical."
" your own personal whim about what a debate should or shouldn't be"
Aren't you the doing the same thing you allege that I'm doing? Weren't you the one who said debate was about "cornering your opponent"? And on whose "whim" should MY VOTE be based? I never employ "whim" when it concerns participating in or analyzing debate.
"It is literally one of the most basic functions of debate to outline what you believe to be the BoP for you and your opponent to the judge."
No, it most certainly IS NOT. Just because you see it practiced here commonly doesn't mean that it is a "basic function" of debate. The burden of proof will always be determined by the proposition itself. Satisfying the burden is contingent on the affirmation or negation.
"You're not just "interpreting things differently," you're challenging one of the well-established norms of debate."
It is a "norm" here. It IS NOT a norm of debate. And please point out where in the guidelines it expressly forbids one from "challenging one of the well-established norms..."
"BoP is defined by your POSITION & ROLE relative to the resolution (i.e. are you PRO or CON. Are you the one making the claim or the one challenging it?). This is again the implicit norm for debate, and challenging it in your vote is uncalled for."
You've just imputed a contradiction. If this is the case, then the Burden of Proof cannot be left to the outline of that which "you believe to be the BoP for you and your opponent to the judge."
You guys once again are making stuff up. I've read through the guidelines, and I've read the policies. There's nothing in them which expressly forbids my awarding conduct on that basis that I chose.
Lastly, the Contender, albeit concise, does an adept job at clarifying the onuses they each bear by the end of third Round. PRO was attempting to move the goal post by focusing on accuracy without connecting it back to either his proposition or even his own definition (i.e. "reliable.") The Contender doubles down in round 3 and let's everyone know that over which they are debating: "Which is more reliable?" And according to the definition submitted by PRO, reliable would be described as "better suit[ed] or fit to be relied on; more worthy of dependence, reliance or trust; more dependable, more trustworthy." A definition, which should be noted was taken from "Wiktionary" which shares a parent company with Wikipedia. I say that because it is reasonable to presume that Wikipedia's definition of "reliable" would also have been taken from "Wiktionary." PRO did not do a sufficient job in meeting the description of his own definition, which suggests that the sources of information would be more "trustworthy," "dependable," etc. The contender remains focused on his burden and satisfies his onus by demonstrating that Wikipedia suggests of itself that it isn't a reliable source of information at all.
Thus, the winner of this debate in my view is without doubt, Fruit_Inspector.
You've forfeited the third round. Is that a tacit concession to this debate?
Either way, I will still provide an argument for Round Three.
Interesting subject. I'll try to follow along if time permits.
"Um... no - we have a shared burden of proof - you must prove that you are right, and that I am wrong."
Yes, I have my own onus. And I've chosen to negate your affirmation of the proposition by arguing in favor of individuality. That does not mean that every assertion you make stands until you're proven wrong. That's fallacious and I won't hesitate to point it out. I can criticize your assertions for their lack of substantiation (e.g. psychology = neuroscience) without providing a counterpoint. Pointing out and explaining the lack of substantiation is enough. My burden is to substantiate my negation of your affirmation. And I will proceed accordingly.
"There is no "have and eat your cake" there is a BoP that must be fulfilled."
I wasn't referring to our onuses. I was referring to your argument. You are trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Your supposed empirical arguments undermine your abstract arguments. But we'll flesh that out in Round Three.
"Specifically? Your sophistry points, it kinda buys into your own hype, remember how I pointed out that RAA, same thing here. You need to lay your own framework better, as it stands, you aren't the best of formatting your objections nor tying them in."
Not necessarily. You're operating under the impression that I first have to negate and argue a counterpoint to substantiate my objection. I don't have to prove you wrong; you have to prove you're right. And you have yet to do so. I'm negating your point by arguing in service of individuality, an argument you've unwittingly help me make. You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. No worries, I'll make this explicitly clear in our next round.
Which of my arguments were "looser"? And did we debate this in the forums?
Obviously my rhymes couldn't melt a snow cone. Enjoy your victory. Let's do this again. It was fun.
I suppose time will tell. I'll point it out in my response.
Interesting. But you have not answered my questions. Well, I'll respond soon enough.
I'm bumping up this debate before it falls deep within the annals of subjects forgotten, because I spit "hawt fyer!"
"Wow - people think I have a temper but its nothing compared to yours, right?"
I don't have "a temper." My use of caps has nothing to do with "shouting." The comments section doesn't have an embolden function, so I instead use caps. In all cases, I use caps and the embolden function to emphasize a point, not to "shout" at what are essentially letters on a computer screen.
"Furthermore the fact that government treats black people worse? Yeah - that has literally nothing to do with this."
Where did I suggest this? Why would I bring up "treating worse," when I made sure to include it among the exclusions when first starting my argument?
"Furthermore, I didn't even mention anything about my argument in relation to yours - I merely noted that your argument regarding the function of the hypothalamus was quite superficial - just think some more."
Once again, I look forward to your attempt.
"Race and gender aren't comparable - we've been over this"
You opened the door when you made reference to multiracial individuals experiencing low self-esteem as result of a government form. If they aren't "comparable," you have exhibited poor methods in demonstrating that. And I do understand, or at least grasp, that which you insinuate when you made reference to the hypothalamus, but IT'S UP TO YOU, AND YOU ALONE, to substantiate it's connection to and qualification of self-identification.
And if you read carefully, I did not "assume" you couldn't do this; I specifically stated that you have "yet" to do it. Again, I welcome your attempt.
It's neither "weak" nor "superficial." I would intend for nothing more than to avoid a contest over sources, especially one where the citations are irrelevant and inapplicable. And no, my response wasn't "semantic," (which by the way is a useless jab given that the setting demands that we stipulate the definitions on which we base our arguments.) It's conceptual. For example, if I were to propose, "A person is their 'race,' and ought to be treated as the so-called 'race" with which they identify" the first begged question would be "how is this self-identification with this so-called 'race' identifiable to others?" And the second question is "how does one treat another in accordance to their self-identification with their so-called 'race?" So, how does one identify another's self-identification with gender, not sex? How does one treat another in the appropriate manner, keeping that self-identification with gender in mind? How do we standardize and/or normalize this response? You will have to answer these questions in order to satisfy your B.O.P., or more to the point, I will make sure to demand that you answer these questions in order to satisfy your B.O.P.
The transfer to philosophy is fine. The resolution to his proposition is necessarily abstract. Theweakeredge attempted to elide this in his attempt to link the physicality of the brain to one's sense of self. I have no intention of regurgitating other people's opinions, i.e. citing social theory. The route I've chosen is to compel my opponent to resolve his resolution by identifying the object of his prescriptive response. I welcome his attempt at refutation.
First, you haven't seen anything from my arguments, because I've yet to submit one. Second, I do not need to "debunk" your argument, because you already have. I continue to drop hints, but I won't spoon-feed it to you. I'll say it again: remember your proposition; remember your definitions; remember your burden. Once you've appreciated exactly that which your proposition conveys, you'll realize that your burden is far more difficult than you thought. And it can't be resolved by neurological studies, or threats of suicide, and the like. But I'll make sure to explicitly point out the flaws in your argument once I've submitted my post.
The focus of this debate isn't whether sexual dimorphism has been observable since the early Greeks. Theweakeredge, remember your proposition; remember your definitions; remember your burden. The early Greeks won't help, and neither will your citations referencing the minute structural differences in the brain structures of transgendered individuals. Perhaps in the intermittent period, it'd be more prudent to go over your description as well as your argument again.
I appreciate the nod, but I wouldn't have accepted this debate assuming the role of Con. "Allowed" is different from "treat." And I wouldn't object to transgenders participating in Sports.
"I didn’t think what I said pertained to the debate. That being said, I haven’t read any arguments yet, so it could have"
Not everything, but there were some interesting morsels in there.
"I think your grasping at straws - it doesn't take into account my response at all"
No, I am not. I said "tidbit." I don't agree with everything bmdrocks21 said, but there's an astute query present which even if you did your due diligence to find would still not change your capacity to resolve it. It would behoove you to read over his statements, again.
There's a very astute tidbit in your statements, there, bmdrocks21. I wonder if it will present any concerns for my opponent as this debate progresses.
"Well, he's probably going to argue that nobody owes anybody any obligations - maybe he'll talk about the part before that - but he's gonna focus on the moral obligation bit.
I think - and don't quote me here - that his position as an individualist means that moral obligations aren't a thing."
I could argue that, but that isn't the biggest problem in your argument.
"Interesting... so it would be like saying a non scientific topic that is heavily resolved, but doesn’t mean that people should treat it a specific way."
It isn't about whether the scientific topic is resolved. Notice his definitions, and notice his argument. Is gender, for example, necessarily "scientific"? And if it's not, then what's the relevance of scientific analysis? When one prescribes that one be treated a PARTICULAR WAY, that begs a question, doesn't it? I can't reveal everything, but dig deeper.
"but... if Transgender right arguments are psychological/neurological, what's the difference between evidence for evolution and evidence for transgender?"
Again, this is not about Transgender "rights." We are not arguing over their legal privileges or any deprivation with respect to the Constitution--or any other nation's itemized list of recognized rights. It's about substantiating whether a trans person is who said person identifies as, AND the extent to which they are owed behavior from others that reflects this identification.
This is the difference between legally recognizing "gay marriage" and prescribing that Christians, who for the sake of argument, "treat" homosexual unions as anything other than an "abomination." That is not the same. I'm focusing strictly on the proposition. I'm not focusing on the psychology/neuroscience (by the way pyschology =/= neuroscience) nor am I focusing on Evolution.
I assume you wouldn't. Why then would you have argued in that manner if you realized your mistakes beforehand?
You were so focused on arguing cosmetically, and arguing against arguments yet to be made that you've considered neither the complexity nor nuance of this issue. You may assume that my response to you is going to be "No, trans-people are not, and ought not to be treated as the gender which they identify as." Not necessarily. There's more than one way to negate the affirmation of your proposition, and you'll see it once I respond.
"In my opinion, that would still be similar to saying "we ought to treat Evolution as True", which is only one step away from "evolution is true"."
Except the veracity of (place scientific concept or phenomena here) is not contingent on how it's "treated." It's contingent on its capacity to be verified scientifically. That is not the same, however many "steps" your opinion considers. Again, as a surveillant, you must be conscientious about the arguments being made, not your impressions.
"to Athias: I've done enough research to know that Pro Trans Right arguments are as rigorous as the evidence for theory of Evolution, if not Anti-Flat Earth or Pro-Old Earth theory."
Except the subject of this debate isn't Pro vs Anti Trans "Rights," whatever those are supposed to be. It's "Trans-people are, and ought to be treated, as the gender they identify as." So the questions which must be resolved are: (1) Are trans people the gender to which they identify? and (2) Are they owed a response which reflects the gender to which they identify?
"This is gonna be a really, really hard debate."
Actually, it won't be. As thoughtful and meticulous as Theweakeredge was, his Round 1 argument is largely unfocused. He has issues with his definitions, there's a lot of irrelevant fluff, his syllogism is nonsensical, there is a conflict in the proposition itself, and he employs emotional blackmail to substantiate his claim that others have an obligation to treat trans people as their identified gender otherwise they'll "kill themselves."
His strongest argument perhaps is in the comparison between brain structures, but because of his definitions, it's irrelevant. Undefeatable, if you're going to be a conscientious surveillant, then you must understand that which is being argued.
I still have some time, so I'll respond at my leisure.
Likewise.
Because the trend dictates that women in comparison to men are overwhelmingly the stay-at-home parent. It's a presumption that leaves out stay-at-home fathers, but isn't a bad presumption.
My mistake. I see the "not" also applied to the un-moderated part.
Reading the proposition, the subject is not as clear-cut the "Holocaust's being bad" or the universe's being a tetrahedron. But I suppose I'll just have to demonstrate that when the debate begins.
You're going to have to play it by ear. I suppose one could still follow the guidelines just to avoid the meddling of the moderators (note: RationalMadMan did propose that this Rap Battle be un-moderated.) Use your discretion.
Let me guess: you agree with RationalMadMan's arguments, but you think that I have the better flow? I don't really know the procedure when it concerns voting on rap battles. I assume it would be somewhat different from a regular debate in that "Rap Battles" I presume focus more on one's rap skills (otherwise what's the point?) But at the end of the day, voters vote however they like. So, vote however you like, sir.
Imabench/Mikal, Bluesteel/Raisor, even Intelligence/Benjamin aren't I. Sit back and watch me work.
""Oh yeah because no government is yet doing a perfect job thus the concept of government itself is bad!"
Wait till you hear that Anarchism can't even reach the glory of government-based society. In fact, anarchism will either die out or there will be a leader, which turns into a government."
Are you trying to engage me in a discussion over a lyric, or is the part you quoted merely your impression of my position?
A two-week time for argument and a one-month voting period, could possibly take us to the next quarter, but what the heck? With the time allotted, I'm sure you'll put your best arguments forward. Good luck.
May I use curse words, and obscenities? Or will that be held against me?
If there are any more rules and stipulations to be hashed out, perhaps it'd be more "economical" to discuss them here as opposed to a debate round. Otherwise, I'm ready when you are.
"That you think we're having a pissing contest is a strange analogy to pop into your mind..."
It's not strange at all. As a moderator, it falls within your function to presume that you "know better." How else would you assume to moderate the behavior of others if you didn't. And I would assume that on occasion, you'll come across select individuals who take it upon themselves to presume the same thing--they "know better." And on occasion, they do. So how does this pertain to our interaction? I'm not presuming to know or care how to moderate the behavior of others. But there is one thing I'm certain I know, and that's logic. And yes, I know logic "better" (more consistent) as far as I can gauge from my interactions and discussions with you. Your presumption to "know better" and my presumption to "know better" have come into conflict; hence "pissing contest." And this is not mitigated by the fact you have a title.
"You chose to add questionable extra points to your vote, causing it likely be deleted if reported."
It wasn't questionable; your questioning my allotment doesn't make it "questionable." Here, let's bring up, once again, the voting standard as it pertains to sources:
"To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's."
And now, let's look at my RFD as it concerned the sources' point allotment:
"Better Sources: I awarded the sources point to CON. Citing sources is not about quantity, but relevance. PRO cites an "expert paper" on the fossil record and the "97% consensus by scientists" on the Theory of Evolution, but fails to demonstrate its relevance to the affirmation of his proposition. (It should be noted that consensus doesn't determine veracity.) The argument over which they debate is not "Evolution vs Creation." It's "The Problem of Evil Makes it Unreasonable to Believe in the Christian God." CON however made specific references to Biblical text which informs his contention. Point awarded to CON."
What part of this description doesn't meet the criteria listed above? Don't bother answering because it's rhetorical. You won't find a part. You know why? BECAUSE I HAD ALREADY READ THE RULES. And I also read the debate in its entirety, as well as each source provided.
"Someone reported it (actually multiple someones), and someone gave feedback to the main vote moderator explicitly questioning the validity of the source allotment."
Well of course if "multiple someones" reported it, it necessarily means there was something wrong; good to know you focus on quantity rather than quality. And I'm sure Undefeatable has no stake in explicitly questioning the validity of an allotment that was against his favor. (Didn't you once accuse me of the same?)
"Unsurprisingly, it was then deleted."
Oh, your interpretations don't "surprise" me, either.
"Lots of votes get deleted. Even I've had some of my votes get deleted."
So you mean, I'm not alone in this? I feel much better...
Please, Ragnar, as if it that would be the source of my contention. This is a matter of logic and decorum.
My apologies, but I won't be voting again. I gather that Ragnar, and to a lesser extent, MisterChris, will attempt to continue this implicit "pissing contest" with me. It's rather unfortunate, you did have the better argument.
If you have concerns with my vote, do me the courtesy of addressing them with me, first. I would've obliged in explaining to you the reason your sources were irrelevant.
Reading comprehension is obviously NOT your strong suit.
Here, I'll quote Fruit_Inspector verbatim:
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1)
God is an eternal spirit, an immaterial being not bound by time. He created all matter and energy, and even time itself. After creating stars and galaxies, plants and animals, He created human beings - not from evolved apes but purposefully and intentionally. HE MADE US IN HIS IMAGE; that is, we reflect the glory of God in the physical world as the moon reflects the light of the sun. As image-bearers of God, WE ARE ALSO MORAL BEINGS AND CAPABLE OF MAKING DECISIONS AND BEING HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM. God created us with an immaterial soul that is inextricably connected to our body, giving humans a dual nature. Humans are thus distinct from the rest of creation. Plants are not alive as we are. Animals are not held to a moral standard as we are. BUT THIS UNIQUE LIFE AND MORAL AGENCY ALSO GIVE US INHERENTLY DIGNITY AND VALUE THAT COMES FROM THE ONE WHOSE IMAGE WE BEAR. No other part of creation can claim such an honor as humans have in that regard."
Do you see how Fruit_Inspector uses text from the Bible to inform a moral standard? A subject which is pertinent to the proposition over which they argue as it concerns "THE PROBLEM OF EVIL..." and the claim that it qualifies the existence of God?
Now let's look at Undefeatable's response:
"In the beginning...
Notice how Con vouches for creationism, stating outright "not from evolved apes but purposefully and intentionally". We could have a debate over whether evolution is true or not, but the level of scholar evidence for evolution proves that it is one of the most rigorous scientific theories of all time. Even just one expert paper notes the fossil records, the common structures, the distribution of species, molecular biology, and gradual steps carefully shaping the incredibly complex world of today. Nearly 97% of scientists agree with the theory of evolution. On the other hand, there are next to no papers published on the strength of creationism. Clearly, con's assumption is absurd."
Not once did PRO address CON's point. He took CON's statement about "not from evolved apes but purposefully and intentionally" and argued at best a tangential subject where Evolution and Creationism are at conflict. Not only that, he cited a consensus which logically does not inform the veracity of an argument. So his citation is USELESS as it neither addresses the subject of their debate, nor inform the "truth" of his point.
The fact that it "SEEMED" (seem, by the way, is not an observation) to you that CON's argument must necessarily be off-topic because I characterized PRO's response as off-topic is an incredibly INEPT analysis. (Responses don't have to reflect the relevance of that to which they respond, as Undefeatable tactfully demonstrated.) And your mentioning the three points which govern awarding points on sources only informs that you read neither their debate, nor my RFD properly. You can delete my votes if you want--it's become habit by now--but DON'T HOLD ME RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR POOR READING COMPREHENSION.
Reason for Decision:
This was an interesting read. Now on to my decision.
Conduct: They were both fairly the same here.
Spelling & Grammar: Again, fairly the same here.
Better Sources: I awarded the sources point to CON. Citing sources is not about quantity, but relevance. PRO cites an "expert paper" on the fossil record and the "97% consensus by scientists" on the Theory of Evolution, but fails to demonstrate its relevance to the affirmation of his proposition. (It should be noted that consensus doesn't determine veracity.) The argument over which they debate is not "Evolution vs Creation." It's "The Problem of Evil Makes it Unreasonable to Believe in the Christian God." CON however made specific references to Biblical text which informs his contention. Point awarded to CON.
Better arguments: this admittedly was a difficult proposition for PRO to affirm. He would have to demonstrate how the existence of a Christian God was contingent on the existence of evil. PRO doesn't do this AT ALL. PRO instead operates on the metric of "equality," utilitarianism, and a Buddhist Kharma System. PRO did make a substantial point about the sin of babies and animals, which goes unaddressed by CON, but once again fails to tie this to the affirmation of his proposition. CON on the other hand does a good job in describing the standards of good and evil as noted in the Bible, and maintaining that which informs God by standards of the Bible. PRO's failure to define "evil" and index it to an absolute moral standard, in my opinion, cost him this debate. It allowed CON to define the standard of evil in accordance to a moral to relativism where the Christian God is the sole arbiter. With all that considered, I award my vote in favor of Fruit_Inspector.
Thanks for voting.
*bump*
Sure. But it'll have to be after this upcoming week.
"I guess the premise is too difficult to prove as is. I need a more stringent topic to win my side."
Yeah, you do. Reliability is far too abstract. Without outlining the exact metric on which you choose to make the comparison, the substantiation of your position becomes that more difficult.
It shouldn't impact the debate. All the more reason to question the reason the question was posed to begin with. But given that I did promise that I would keep the commentary strictly focused on the content of the debate, let me congratulate you on a well-argued position. You, for the many reasons I already listed, were quite adept at identifying the onuses, and satisfying your own. Your arguments were concise, focused, and straight-to-the-point. Well done, Fruit_Inspector.
He's been oddly interested in *bumping* this debate, having done it several times and then deleting his comments afterwards. If I were to guess, his question--unprompted--would be yet another attempt at *bumping* this debate during the voting period. One would imagine that if you or oromagi were concerned with the content of the short description, you would've brought it to his attention. My response to these "antics" to my chagrin have been less than savory.
Let me apologize to you, and oromagi, if my feud with the moderation has flooded you with unnecessary notifications. From here on out, I'll keep the commentary strictly focused on the content of the debate.
What did you think?
""Predetermining the BoP" was something CON could have disputed, but he did not."
Neither party has to "dispute" the other person's conduct in order for it to be considered in a vote. If so, then please show me in the Voting Policy where it states that.
"There is no "unfairness" about something mutually agreed to, as long as neither party is being pressured by an outside factor."
When was it "mutually agreed"? You mean there's a tacit agreement made by both parties upon accepting the debate? Once again, according to the guideline, I DON'T HAVE to demonstrate that it was either "excessive" or in breech in of mutually agreed upon rules, so long as I can substantiate that it was unfair--an option discretely presented in the guideline, notably through the disjunction "OR."
"Your argument itself is nonsensical"
Your disagreement does not inform "nonsensical."
" your own personal whim about what a debate should or shouldn't be"
Aren't you the doing the same thing you allege that I'm doing? Weren't you the one who said debate was about "cornering your opponent"? And on whose "whim" should MY VOTE be based? I never employ "whim" when it concerns participating in or analyzing debate.
"It is literally one of the most basic functions of debate to outline what you believe to be the BoP for you and your opponent to the judge."
No, it most certainly IS NOT. Just because you see it practiced here commonly doesn't mean that it is a "basic function" of debate. The burden of proof will always be determined by the proposition itself. Satisfying the burden is contingent on the affirmation or negation.
"You're not just "interpreting things differently," you're challenging one of the well-established norms of debate."
It is a "norm" here. It IS NOT a norm of debate. And please point out where in the guidelines it expressly forbids one from "challenging one of the well-established norms..."
"BoP is defined by your POSITION & ROLE relative to the resolution (i.e. are you PRO or CON. Are you the one making the claim or the one challenging it?). This is again the implicit norm for debate, and challenging it in your vote is uncalled for."
You've just imputed a contradiction. If this is the case, then the Burden of Proof cannot be left to the outline of that which "you believe to be the BoP for you and your opponent to the judge."
You guys once again are making stuff up. I've read through the guidelines, and I've read the policies. There's nothing in them which expressly forbids my awarding conduct on that basis that I chose.
Reason for Decision (continued):
Lastly, the Contender, albeit concise, does an adept job at clarifying the onuses they each bear by the end of third Round. PRO was attempting to move the goal post by focusing on accuracy without connecting it back to either his proposition or even his own definition (i.e. "reliable.") The Contender doubles down in round 3 and let's everyone know that over which they are debating: "Which is more reliable?" And according to the definition submitted by PRO, reliable would be described as "better suit[ed] or fit to be relied on; more worthy of dependence, reliance or trust; more dependable, more trustworthy." A definition, which should be noted was taken from "Wiktionary" which shares a parent company with Wikipedia. I say that because it is reasonable to presume that Wikipedia's definition of "reliable" would also have been taken from "Wiktionary." PRO did not do a sufficient job in meeting the description of his own definition, which suggests that the sources of information would be more "trustworthy," "dependable," etc. The contender remains focused on his burden and satisfies his onus by demonstrating that Wikipedia suggests of itself that it isn't a reliable source of information at all.
Thus, the winner of this debate in my view is without doubt, Fruit_Inspector.