You are partially correct about gender, but it certainly doesn't demonstrate any kind of dichotomy. So I'd consider that a red herring. As for the other thing, when we are arguing definitions, we use the definition that is the most applicable and the most fitting to the resolution, that's what mine does, the fact that it's by the APA and psychology as a field uses it are just supporting evidence
Any ad hominems you got from that is strictly your own interpretation of what I said, not actually what I said. I was pointing out the irony of you not understanding a false equivalence considering the rational in your username.
I never claimed your argument was unjustified due to this, that would be an ad hominem and a red herring, I did not. Again, learn logical fallacies correctly. A logical fallacy can be applicable of any premise in an argument, whereas the note to your username was simply that, a note, not a premise.
Given the definition given by the APA (American Psychological Association), Gender can not be solely binary. You believe me making a false analogy for reasons unjustified, I believe you are making a false analogy because your definition of gender is frankly incorrect, and nearly every gender psychologist disagrees with you. Not to make an appeal to authority, but when arguing definitions, their perspective is important to weigh, and it's fair to say they weigh heavily to support me. I have the preponderance of evidence to support my claims, you do not.
False Equivalence, a better or more comparable example would be the color spectrum. Let's call blue maleness and red femaleness, you can have an absence of such, black, or be ever-shifting, white. Temperature implies an inherent dichotomy that is untrue for gender.
Have you ever studied logical fallacies "Rational"Madman?
Actually, to correct you.. No. there is no depth to what this source is saying. It's a collection of messy red herring, strawmen, and non-sequiturs. No one denies gender is there, people correct you that gender is primarily a societal concept. Of course, there is some genetic and neuroscience that backs up gender identity and all of the research that comes with it as a result.
What you misunderstand is that non-binary people exist, as in people who identify with neither gender. You fundamentally misunderstand the concept of being transgender if that is the problem you are being stuck upon. I would ask you further your research instead of trying to come to your own conclusions on it. As they are logically fallacious
So, I'm pulling an all-nighter to get this argument done as fast as possible, I can not stand the abomination that is that block of text you copy and pasted from the heritage foundation. The amount of misinformation and logical fallacies frankly concern me, you should avoid using them as a source of argumentation in the future.
Which I guess if you're purely looking to become a better debater is fine, but I just like being intellectually honest. I can be devil's advocate, but it always feels dishonest; because I know an argument that would beat it.
Yes but it affects people "differently" and that is my point. Global warming does not affect people's psychological state as directly as being transgender does, as being transgender is about an individual's gender, i.e, they're psychological perspective.
I think you're confusing me for the actual CON in this debate, I definitely don't agree with those positions, and have hopefully shown that I understand that within my forum. The top of the page has who is who, I did not participate in this debate.
I agree with your points and have no idea where you are getting those quotes, I definitely do not remember posting them, and disagree with them.
Those are not things I have ever, remember at least, saying. Could you link where you go those quotes? I was just agreeing that Con wasn't transphobic, not to what they actually said in the debate. I haven't read all of it, and while I would agree with their side, I wouldn't know if I agreed with everything they said.
The points are one-off, and it's driving me insane, at this point, I just want it in one direction or the other. I mean, I would like votes for me, but at this point....
Wow, you had such an awesome teacher in general! I think the teacher teaching in the language that's from the country they are actually from is probably a cultural divide. Like maybe they assume the students to know more than they do, and that causes some knowledge gaps for actual teaching? I don't know, just a theory.
Transgender is referring to the GENDER of a person, not the sex, the two are not synonyms. They mean different things. So again, a false equivalence. Not that you actually rebutted the first one. It's fallacy after fallacy here.
That's like saying people with depression ought to, "Grow a thick skin" what the actual h*ll? That kind of rhetoric is what increases the suicide rate in America, "Ah we shouldn't do anything to help people who are at risk, let's just tell em' to deal with it." or "Ah, that woman has been sexually harassed, tell her to get over it." Both are insanely harmful and are wrong.
As for the majority offense, that's a false equivalence - as well as the pro-choice example. Yes, hate speech is protected, but if you read the actual bill it's not covering it on the basis of hate speech but of equality and non-discriminatory laws. Most of which have already been established and are already in law. Climate change does not directly relate to these people's psychological states. It is a major phenomenon that has the potential to wipe life on earth, they do not correlate. The same to the abortion thing, that is relating to something that does not yet have human rights, they do not correlate.
Except your factually wrong, saying there are two genders. Not to mention the clear psychological damage done to the trans person. It's not a violation of the first amendment under certain exceptions, this can just be another one of them.
1439.51. (a) - (5) reads: "Willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns."
And the punishment is a misdeamnor which is: "Standard California misdemeanors are offenses that are usually punishable by a maximum of: 6 months in county jail, and /or. A fine of up to $1,000."
Notice the "Up to" part? You are drastically taking this out of context. Not to mention, basing the misdeamnor charge on Texas standards instead of california standards. This is why we actually research things please.
Ah, false equivalences left and right. Comparing the having to call someone, "Majesty" is not at all the same of having to call a trans male, "he". For one - The title, "Majesty" is usually associated with royalty or something of high regard. Not to mention there is no psychological strain with being or not being of royalty for the majority.
In contrast, a very usual occurrence whenever it comes to trans people is something called, "Gender Dysphoria"[1] or essentially, your mind (Gender) not fitting into the body you were born with. This creates an inherent level of distress at being referred to as, let's use the trans male from before, "she." Therefore it does harm the trans individual to be referred to as such, and is also, incorrect.
As Intelligence is implying, Gender is a social construct, the psychological imperatives of such haven been essentially hammered into our brains in something akin to religious dogma.
So the resolution could be restated as: Science is dependent on the mind for existence/Science is not influenced by persona; feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts?
Yeah, too broad, think I'll pass.
Also, the way you want people to vote, yeah I'm not for that, no offence but I don't trust you to be objective about that...
"exact same physical traits" this would include finger prints, to say otherwise would be untopical, or an argument that is ignoring the constraints of the resolution.
As the guy who forfeited two rounds, don't worry about it at all. It was a fun debate, I liked the back and forth for the standard of morality. Looking forward to debates in the future.
I think you misinterpreted my last comment. I do not think you have this, or I find your rebuttal less than satisfactory. Maybe I'm overly critical because I've debated a whole bunch, mostly in philosophy discord servers and such, but I feel you could've made that rebuttal a contention on its own and really worked that advantage you had there. Also - what's wrong with satanist's drawings? They aren't typically bad or anything.
You are partially correct about gender, but it certainly doesn't demonstrate any kind of dichotomy. So I'd consider that a red herring. As for the other thing, when we are arguing definitions, we use the definition that is the most applicable and the most fitting to the resolution, that's what mine does, the fact that it's by the APA and psychology as a field uses it are just supporting evidence
Any ad hominems you got from that is strictly your own interpretation of what I said, not actually what I said. I was pointing out the irony of you not understanding a false equivalence considering the rational in your username.
I never claimed your argument was unjustified due to this, that would be an ad hominem and a red herring, I did not. Again, learn logical fallacies correctly. A logical fallacy can be applicable of any premise in an argument, whereas the note to your username was simply that, a note, not a premise.
Given the definition given by the APA (American Psychological Association), Gender can not be solely binary. You believe me making a false analogy for reasons unjustified, I believe you are making a false analogy because your definition of gender is frankly incorrect, and nearly every gender psychologist disagrees with you. Not to make an appeal to authority, but when arguing definitions, their perspective is important to weigh, and it's fair to say they weigh heavily to support me. I have the preponderance of evidence to support my claims, you do not.
False Equivalence, a better or more comparable example would be the color spectrum. Let's call blue maleness and red femaleness, you can have an absence of such, black, or be ever-shifting, white. Temperature implies an inherent dichotomy that is untrue for gender.
Have you ever studied logical fallacies "Rational"Madman?
Actually, to correct you.. No. there is no depth to what this source is saying. It's a collection of messy red herring, strawmen, and non-sequiturs. No one denies gender is there, people correct you that gender is primarily a societal concept. Of course, there is some genetic and neuroscience that backs up gender identity and all of the research that comes with it as a result.
What you misunderstand is that non-binary people exist, as in people who identify with neither gender. You fundamentally misunderstand the concept of being transgender if that is the problem you are being stuck upon. I would ask you further your research instead of trying to come to your own conclusions on it. As they are logically fallacious
So, I'm pulling an all-nighter to get this argument done as fast as possible, I can not stand the abomination that is that block of text you copy and pasted from the heritage foundation. The amount of misinformation and logical fallacies frankly concern me, you should avoid using them as a source of argumentation in the future.
This.... isn't even their argument.... they just... copy and pasted..... literally.
Which I guess if you're purely looking to become a better debater is fine, but I just like being intellectually honest. I can be devil's advocate, but it always feels dishonest; because I know an argument that would beat it.
You know what? It doesn't matter. You're wrong.
I'm gonna need your definition for philosophically here, do you have a syllogism that proves this?
Vote Please?
Yes but it affects people "differently" and that is my point. Global warming does not affect people's psychological state as directly as being transgender does, as being transgender is about an individual's gender, i.e, they're psychological perspective.
Yes, I realize my critical error here. The of in the resolution should have been as!
I think you're confusing me for the actual CON in this debate, I definitely don't agree with those positions, and have hopefully shown that I understand that within my forum. The top of the page has who is who, I did not participate in this debate.
I agree with your points and have no idea where you are getting those quotes, I definitely do not remember posting them, and disagree with them.
Those are not things I have ever, remember at least, saying. Could you link where you go those quotes? I was just agreeing that Con wasn't transphobic, not to what they actually said in the debate. I haven't read all of it, and while I would agree with their side, I wouldn't know if I agreed with everything they said.
Way to pay attention to the resolution buddy. Good job.
Eh, sounds good to me
The points are one-off, and it's driving me insane, at this point, I just want it in one direction or the other. I mean, I would like votes for me, but at this point....
Would you consider voting?
Wow, you had such an awesome teacher in general! I think the teacher teaching in the language that's from the country they are actually from is probably a cultural divide. Like maybe they assume the students to know more than they do, and that causes some knowledge gaps for actual teaching? I don't know, just a theory.
In regards to your vote - I agree
I'm in my second year of Spanish, definitely don't know enough to read a book in it, I think I'm just bad at learning languages. XD
Just flexing on everybody with their ability to french
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5003-transgender-discussion-education
Transgender is referring to the GENDER of a person, not the sex, the two are not synonyms. They mean different things. So again, a false equivalence. Not that you actually rebutted the first one. It's fallacy after fallacy here.
That's like saying people with depression ought to, "Grow a thick skin" what the actual h*ll? That kind of rhetoric is what increases the suicide rate in America, "Ah we shouldn't do anything to help people who are at risk, let's just tell em' to deal with it." or "Ah, that woman has been sexually harassed, tell her to get over it." Both are insanely harmful and are wrong.
As for the majority offense, that's a false equivalence - as well as the pro-choice example. Yes, hate speech is protected, but if you read the actual bill it's not covering it on the basis of hate speech but of equality and non-discriminatory laws. Most of which have already been established and are already in law. Climate change does not directly relate to these people's psychological states. It is a major phenomenon that has the potential to wipe life on earth, they do not correlate. The same to the abortion thing, that is relating to something that does not yet have human rights, they do not correlate.
Except your factually wrong, saying there are two genders. Not to mention the clear psychological damage done to the trans person. It's not a violation of the first amendment under certain exceptions, this can just be another one of them.
Have you read the actual law? I have:
1439.51. (a) - (5) reads: "Willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns."
And the punishment is a misdeamnor which is: "Standard California misdemeanors are offenses that are usually punishable by a maximum of: 6 months in county jail, and /or. A fine of up to $1,000."
Notice the "Up to" part? You are drastically taking this out of context. Not to mention, basing the misdeamnor charge on Texas standards instead of california standards. This is why we actually research things please.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB219
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/laws/misdemeanor/#:~:text=1.1.-,Punishment%20for%20a%20standard%20misdemeanor,fine%20of%20up%20to%20%241%2C000.
I think I'll just open a forum topic, I'm sure people would use it considering how split the site seems to be on this particular issue.
That's fair, Though it's not as common here as it is on some other debating websites (cough-DDO-cough), DART does have its problems with misconduct.
To be fair, this is a unique occurrence as far as debate endings are concerned.
Ah, false equivalences left and right. Comparing the having to call someone, "Majesty" is not at all the same of having to call a trans male, "he". For one - The title, "Majesty" is usually associated with royalty or something of high regard. Not to mention there is no psychological strain with being or not being of royalty for the majority.
In contrast, a very usual occurrence whenever it comes to trans people is something called, "Gender Dysphoria"[1] or essentially, your mind (Gender) not fitting into the body you were born with. This creates an inherent level of distress at being referred to as, let's use the trans male from before, "she." Therefore it does harm the trans individual to be referred to as such, and is also, incorrect.
As Intelligence is implying, Gender is a social construct, the psychological imperatives of such haven been essentially hammered into our brains in something akin to religious dogma.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/symptoms-causes/syc-20475255#:~:text=Gender%20dysphoria%20is%20the%20feeling,some%20point%20in%20their%20lives.
Uuh, just for clarification - BDSM is completely separate from porn as a practice, porn can depict BDSM, but nothing about it is inherently wrong.
Indeed, that's why I kind of had to say something.
Ah, good luck and all, sorry to bother you.
After I'm finished with my debate on gender with RMM would you be open to doing a general debate on "Transgenderism" as you put it?
So the resolution could be restated as: Science is dependent on the mind for existence/Science is not influenced by persona; feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts?
Yeah, too broad, think I'll pass.
Also, the way you want people to vote, yeah I'm not for that, no offence but I don't trust you to be objective about that...
See what I did there?
I'll bite.
Hmm, I don't see a definition of objective here....
Thanks
Would you consider Voting?
Patriarchy of most of the world is a sad truth that I hope I can be apart of the movement to end.
Coincidence, it's pretty close to bdsm, and I had a friend of the username, "bdsmrocks21" its ironic for me, not necessarily you.
Your username and this debate make an interesting combination
"exact same physical traits" this would include finger prints, to say otherwise would be untopical, or an argument that is ignoring the constraints of the resolution.
As the guy who forfeited two rounds, don't worry about it at all. It was a fun debate, I liked the back and forth for the standard of morality. Looking forward to debates in the future.
Interesting, I suppose I'll see for my self whenever you post your arguments. To a good debate and all.
To be fair, I did say I could be wrong, and I was. This is why we make tentative claims.
Are you devil's advocate or do you genuinely hold the position?
Your answer has no bearings on the debate itself, just curious.
I think you misinterpreted my last comment. I do not think you have this, or I find your rebuttal less than satisfactory. Maybe I'm overly critical because I've debated a whole bunch, mostly in philosophy discord servers and such, but I feel you could've made that rebuttal a contention on its own and really worked that advantage you had there. Also - what's wrong with satanist's drawings? They aren't typically bad or anything.