Thank you all very much for your insightful votes. I appreciate the fact that this was quite a long debate and am truly grateful that you took the time to look over it.
"But PRO himself advanced that the question in uncertain and the rights with which the USFG must concern itself with are not the human rights of zygotes but the Constitutional rights of people of people born or naturalized on US soil. The founding fathers gave the Federal govt no powers to preserve zygotes, though abortion was common enough in their era. The states may assume some new powers that the Federal govt may not, but the power of states to ban abortion is not our topic here."
Just saying, I wasn’t directing the comment to you (more so towards some less charitable opponents who have objected to votes with the dozens of 200 word objections) - I was ovserving that people always seem never to change their minds (me included). Obviously, expressing frustration is fine - I was speaking more on contenders continually complaining over a period of days.
I find it interesting that people always disagree with votes that are casted against them. This seems to be a trend prevalent particularly on this site. I also contribute to this - I quite strongly disagree with Bareny's vote on pretty much every analysis he provides, despite him being a prestigious and respected voter. On the flip side, I particularly dislike when voters arduously complain about votes in the comment sections and spark "comment wars", hence me not expressing any comment on Barney's vote.
I agree that I probably didn't need to concede soft utilitarians, but I think that, as a whole, society adopts soft utilitarianism so it can be held as largely axiomatic.
As you've clearly read this debate, would you be interested in voting?
I won't disclose names but I have been in contact with most of top debaters on this cite and have had some reception. I debated Nyxified because, although her rating isn't particularly strong, her bio, if we accept as true, renders her a strong opposition. Whiteflames obviously is a top, if not the best debater on this cite. I have some more debates with top opponents coming, and if those are successful, I intend on further challenging myself with what may be considered some surprising advocacy's.
Thanks a bunch for the debate. I particularly contacted you to have this debate because I was genuinely interested in having a conversation with someone far more experienced than myself. This has definitely been a worthwhile experience for me!
Your burden of proof analysis is itself which you seem to require the contender to conceded. You ought instead, like Novice suggested, put the burden up for contention.
Would have usually had an argument submitted by now, but as I’m amidst both a house move and the commencing of my second semester, I’ll utalise more of my time.
You can't name me one word, out of the 171,146 English words that exist, that follow your so called "unorthodox" grammatical rules. It sounds like you are the one with the cumbersome burden here.
Stop saying "unconventional" - it's circular and known as a fallacy. You are asking me why circularity isn't acceptable as a definition, but I hold that it is axiomatic. I suppose this is just a point of disagreement - you believe words can be circular and I don't.
Ok, then what is the definition? You realise that you aren't getting away with this - if you can't define "female" then your entire argument collapses.
“ Gender identity is a label, which people can self-elect because they want to adopt the social role *associated* with that label”
This is the first time you have ever proposed a non circular definition. You are asserting that “female” is a label which people adopt because of the social see les associated with that label. This is a common definition, however it is erroneous. Whatever “social role” you can define for me (you haven’t done so yet) is one which will inevitably render some “women” (who don’t wish to conform to your proposed roles) “non females”. I ask, what is so difficult in just accepting the scientifically sound “sex” definition?
The meaning of a word is literally it's definition.
"People might "identify" as female because of a set of reasons, e.g. they prefer to have long hair, breasts, have a certain personality, etc. - but presumably we agree that these things aren't part of the *definition* because there are women who don't have those things."
This is incoherent, because you are merely describing being feminine. How do you make the leap from feminine to literal female. If these things aren't part of the definition, then why are you mentioning it? If you say that transgendered people switch from say male to female, and you say they change because of a set of reasons (long hair etc), but yet you say those reasons are not related to the terms male or female, then it doesn't answer the question of why one switches from a male to a female.
If a person has depression, we don’t say “ok because this has a biological grounding, we ought propel it I.e help the depressed person commit”. Instead, we battle the mindset and right the wrong.
I already explained how names are different - names are labels for people which do not opine on the objective state of a being i.e sex, age etc. If it were the case that female is a label in the same way names are, then why do people need the physically transition? Obviously, they wish to be as close to biological women as possible.
Further, it isn't a stretch to say that all nouns ought to reference some thing. This is axiomatic. The definition, "female is that who wants to be female" is vacuous - for what the question then becomes "what does it mean when someone say they want to be female".
Further, the stuff about age and the animals comparison was an attempt at reductio ad absurdum by showing that your driving mechanism for determining gender (feelings) is incoherent.
A quick note because I do not tend to delve into comment section debates. My argument was not merely that gender was an untruth because it was unscientific (my alleged conflating of gender and sex), but that it simply did not possess the means for manifesting a coherent definition I.e escape circularity. You say that such a fallacy is merely an “unorthodox use of grammar”, but categorising it under a seperate label doesn’t remove the circularity - words refer to objects which are not exclusively themselves.
The topical stipulation revolves around the term "balance", which is defined as a predominating amount; a preponderance - unless CON can argue that 10 year olds being pregnant is what constitutes the "predominating amount" of abortions, then the point is null.
Moreover, this nit picking can be used to cut your way as well - how would you feel if pro-lifers constantly droned about the one percent in which women get abortions at the 8th month in the third trimester? How would you respond if they attacked Hillary Clinton's position, that women ought have the right to, just before giving birth, pull the baby out and murder it, so long as the head remains in the women? Such narrow arguments is indicative of one who is unable to defend the wider proposition and instead cherry pick at infinitesimally unlikely scenarios.
The utilization of a 1 percent scenario in order to justify the 99 percent is ineffective - I've noticed a trend in which pro-choicers will often target the 1% of scenarios in order to render more credence to the totality of their belief. The laymen's pro-choice argument almost always mentions rape or incest, and seldom address the 99 percent of abortions.
We could perhaps make this a 2 round debate if you are busy? I assume you will almost max out your 17,000 character limit so the debate will already be quite substantial.
"My arguments have always been a) trans women are biologically women"
This should be okay then, I think. I only use the term "female" because "women" is literally just "adult female", so everything I argue about female should apply to a young female.
I think that the second topic you propose "gender is a more useful way to define male or female than biological sex" sort of implies that we ought use gender, which also means we ought to define female within gender, because obviously our society wouldn't define gender in something other than the most useful definition.
I'll think about modifying the Resolution to something which better suits the use of our discussion.
I feel like my resolution is most general and best suited and most applicable. You say your argument is that "If you look at a collection of physical characteristics to define what a woman is (which I agree is how it should be done), you'll find that a lot of trans women fits into that category just as much as cis women do" so you can just argue something along the lines of "female is defined as that who socially presents themselves in that manner".
Don't want to go to into debate territory here, especially as I am intending on having a proper debate on this subject. I don't really get the distinction between "THBT in most useful definitions, a trans woman/man is a woman/man" and the proposed resolution - isn't it already the case that we ought define "female" with the most useful definition?
Thank you all very much for your insightful votes. I appreciate the fact that this was quite a long debate and am truly grateful that you took the time to look over it.
Either I'm hallucinating all this isn't true. You were like the 4th person to vote...
Ok I usually do not comment on votes but what the fuck are you doing
"But PRO himself advanced that the question in uncertain and the rights with which the USFG must concern itself with are not the human rights of zygotes but the Constitutional rights of people of people born or naturalized on US soil. The founding fathers gave the Federal govt no powers to preserve zygotes, though abortion was common enough in their era. The states may assume some new powers that the Federal govt may not, but the power of states to ban abortion is not our topic here."
The first 1v2 in Dart history.
CON with the late comeback, possibly reverse sweeping the scorecards.
Just saying, I wasn’t directing the comment to you (more so towards some less charitable opponents who have objected to votes with the dozens of 200 word objections) - I was ovserving that people always seem never to change their minds (me included). Obviously, expressing frustration is fine - I was speaking more on contenders continually complaining over a period of days.
I find it interesting that people always disagree with votes that are casted against them. This seems to be a trend prevalent particularly on this site. I also contribute to this - I quite strongly disagree with Bareny's vote on pretty much every analysis he provides, despite him being a prestigious and respected voter. On the flip side, I particularly dislike when voters arduously complain about votes in the comment sections and spark "comment wars", hence me not expressing any comment on Barney's vote.
Thanks for your observation. As this debate is pretty short on votes, would you be interested in voting?
I agree that I probably didn't need to concede soft utilitarians, but I think that, as a whole, society adopts soft utilitarianism so it can be held as largely axiomatic.
As you've clearly read this debate, would you be interested in voting?
I'm genuinely curious, has there ever been a vote casted against you which you agreed with?
Some more votes would be appreciated. Pinging you too as you have explicitly expressed interest in the comments.
Just consider what is in already written in the debate i.e, rules, arguments regarding the burden from both parties.
Come on now he's not quite there yet ;)
I won't disclose names but I have been in contact with most of top debaters on this cite and have had some reception. I debated Nyxified because, although her rating isn't particularly strong, her bio, if we accept as true, renders her a strong opposition. Whiteflames obviously is a top, if not the best debater on this cite. I have some more debates with top opponents coming, and if those are successful, I intend on further challenging myself with what may be considered some surprising advocacy's.
Thanks a bunch for the debate. I particularly contacted you to have this debate because I was genuinely interested in having a conversation with someone far more experienced than myself. This has definitely been a worthwhile experience for me!
LMAO
1. Preview the argument.
2. Save it into google docs.
Well I only have one padawan so...
The beginning of my young padawans career.
Three rounds (so four if we waive the first and last) is enough. We can debate the BoP for it is a matter of contention.
Also, make it four rounds - I promise that three rounds of contest is more than enough.
Your burden of proof analysis is itself which you seem to require the contender to conceded. You ought instead, like Novice suggested, put the burden up for contention.
I definitely enjoyed the contest as I felt that you honestly engaged with my arguments. Thanks for a good debate!
Would have usually had an argument submitted by now, but as I’m amidst both a house move and the commencing of my second semester, I’ll utalise more of my time.
You can't name me one word, out of the 171,146 English words that exist, that follow your so called "unorthodox" grammatical rules. It sounds like you are the one with the cumbersome burden here.
Give me a single word in the English Dictionary which is inherently circular.
Stop saying "unconventional" - it's circular and known as a fallacy. You are asking me why circularity isn't acceptable as a definition, but I hold that it is axiomatic. I suppose this is just a point of disagreement - you believe words can be circular and I don't.
"It is not a definition, and that is exactly why"
Ok, then what is the definition? You realise that you aren't getting away with this - if you can't define "female" then your entire argument collapses.
“ Gender identity is a label, which people can self-elect because they want to adopt the social role *associated* with that label”
This is the first time you have ever proposed a non circular definition. You are asserting that “female” is a label which people adopt because of the social see les associated with that label. This is a common definition, however it is erroneous. Whatever “social role” you can define for me (you haven’t done so yet) is one which will inevitably render some “women” (who don’t wish to conform to your proposed roles) “non females”. I ask, what is so difficult in just accepting the scientifically sound “sex” definition?
The meaning of a word is literally it's definition.
"People might "identify" as female because of a set of reasons, e.g. they prefer to have long hair, breasts, have a certain personality, etc. - but presumably we agree that these things aren't part of the *definition* because there are women who don't have those things."
This is incoherent, because you are merely describing being feminine. How do you make the leap from feminine to literal female. If these things aren't part of the definition, then why are you mentioning it? If you say that transgendered people switch from say male to female, and you say they change because of a set of reasons (long hair etc), but yet you say those reasons are not related to the terms male or female, then it doesn't answer the question of why one switches from a male to a female.
If a person has depression, we don’t say “ok because this has a biological grounding, we ought propel it I.e help the depressed person commit”. Instead, we battle the mindset and right the wrong.
There are also genes correlated with depression, yet we don't support these manifestations.
I already explained how names are different - names are labels for people which do not opine on the objective state of a being i.e sex, age etc. If it were the case that female is a label in the same way names are, then why do people need the physically transition? Obviously, they wish to be as close to biological women as possible.
Further, it isn't a stretch to say that all nouns ought to reference some thing. This is axiomatic. The definition, "female is that who wants to be female" is vacuous - for what the question then becomes "what does it mean when someone say they want to be female".
Then gender wouldn't be founded on "feelings" and rather biology, which, if true, sounds a whole lot like sex.
Further, the stuff about age and the animals comparison was an attempt at reductio ad absurdum by showing that your driving mechanism for determining gender (feelings) is incoherent.
A quick note because I do not tend to delve into comment section debates. My argument was not merely that gender was an untruth because it was unscientific (my alleged conflating of gender and sex), but that it simply did not possess the means for manifesting a coherent definition I.e escape circularity. You say that such a fallacy is merely an “unorthodox use of grammar”, but categorising it under a seperate label doesn’t remove the circularity - words refer to objects which are not exclusively themselves.
You can say anything you want that's within reason I don't really care.
Vote bump. Ten days to go.
I've gone over the 10k mark, but a lot of it is just me quoting what you said (a seriously large portion).
Sorry boss I'll cut it out.
The topical stipulation revolves around the term "balance", which is defined as a predominating amount; a preponderance - unless CON can argue that 10 year olds being pregnant is what constitutes the "predominating amount" of abortions, then the point is null.
Moreover, this nit picking can be used to cut your way as well - how would you feel if pro-lifers constantly droned about the one percent in which women get abortions at the 8th month in the third trimester? How would you respond if they attacked Hillary Clinton's position, that women ought have the right to, just before giving birth, pull the baby out and murder it, so long as the head remains in the women? Such narrow arguments is indicative of one who is unable to defend the wider proposition and instead cherry pick at infinitesimally unlikely scenarios.
The utilization of a 1 percent scenario in order to justify the 99 percent is ineffective - I've noticed a trend in which pro-choicers will often target the 1% of scenarios in order to render more credence to the totality of their belief. The laymen's pro-choice argument almost always mentions rape or incest, and seldom address the 99 percent of abortions.
An unborn is denied right to life because of some womens bad choice. Think of the millions dead since Roe.
Looks like mereological nihilism to me.
No worries, I'll try my best to keep it around the 10k mark.
We could perhaps make this a 2 round debate if you are busy? I assume you will almost max out your 17,000 character limit so the debate will already be quite substantial.
THBT: We ought to use the definition of “female” which prohibits non biologically female beings from being female.
Again, I use “female” as opposed to women not as some trap, but because “women” is literally just older female.
"My arguments have always been a) trans women are biologically women"
This should be okay then, I think. I only use the term "female" because "women" is literally just "adult female", so everything I argue about female should apply to a young female.
I think that the second topic you propose "gender is a more useful way to define male or female than biological sex" sort of implies that we ought use gender, which also means we ought to define female within gender, because obviously our society wouldn't define gender in something other than the most useful definition.
I'll think about modifying the Resolution to something which better suits the use of our discussion.
I feel like my resolution is most general and best suited and most applicable. You say your argument is that "If you look at a collection of physical characteristics to define what a woman is (which I agree is how it should be done), you'll find that a lot of trans women fits into that category just as much as cis women do" so you can just argue something along the lines of "female is defined as that who socially presents themselves in that manner".
Don't want to go to into debate territory here, especially as I am intending on having a proper debate on this subject. I don't really get the distinction between "THBT in most useful definitions, a trans woman/man is a woman/man" and the proposed resolution - isn't it already the case that we ought define "female" with the most useful definition?