Instigator / Pro

1471

rating

debates

0.0%

won

Topic

#2742

There are only two genders

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 5 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Wagyu

Tags

People

Parameters

Publication date: 01.15.2021 11:14AM
Last updated date: 01.29.2021 11:21AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: Two weeks
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Wagyu

1516

rating

debates

55.56%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

juicewrld

01.15.2021 11:15AM

Pro

The two genders that exist are male and female. What other genders are there?

Wagyu

01.15.2021 11:17AM

Con

Well that was all very interesting

Pro has not sourced their claim. I have.

Vote Con.

Round 2

juicewrld

01.15.2021 11:18AM

Pro

You havent argued anything.

I have

Vote pro.

Wagyu

01.15.2021 11:21AM

Con

Well that was all very interesting.

Pro has not rebutted my source. They have made a claim of which hasn't been sourced. My claim has not been refuted.

Essentially, sex refers to biology and gender refers to a social construct.

Vote Con

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a20888315/genders-identity-list-definitions/

Barney

01.18.2021 10:29PM

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro, 2 to con (a balance of 2 to pro)
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote is very in depth in a debate which was not. While there is the risk of outside content, this one gives better feedback to help the debaters improve than all the others... Plus, even while giving points away so lightly, there's both the intuitive issue of what a large percentage of the debate was taken up by those things, combined with the reporter being ok with other votes giving away points so very lightly.

The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
**************************************************

juicewrld

01.17.2021 08:09AM

lol wagyu just want some easy wins

Wagyu

01.17.2021 07:06AM

I'm playing devils advocate for a topic I am truly against, just saying. Wasn't too keen to wasting my time constructing a debate which I knew was faulty.

Jasmine

01.17.2021 04:43AM

-->

@Intelligence_06

How what?

Intelligence_06

01.17.2021 02:15AM

-->

@Jasmine

Bruh HOW

juicewrld

01.16.2021 10:31AM

naise

fauxlaw

01.17.2021 04:15PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Argument: This was a poor debate with nearly no sustainable argument on either side. With an issue that has become, in todays twisted social environment, if anything, confusing, the term "gender" has become more semantic than scientific. It is a view that gender, as opposed to sex, is "a social construct." Neither side bothers to seek a definition of "gender," and therefore, both argue to a null result with one solid difference. Pro's argument that "there are only two genders" aligns with a strict dictionary definition is a scientific sense of there being masculine and feminine constructs, unless one is speaking semantically [meaning of language]. Con's argument is perfect, if we speak of grammar, in which there are multiple genders of words. But this debate is not about grammar; it is about the science of human distinction of gender, which is clearly only two, by definition. points to Pro.

Sourcing: Con offers the only source, mentioned twice in Con's rounds. Eventhough the source uses the grammar definition of "Gender" rather than the scientific/biological definition, and, thus, the "social construct" argument, which is an incorrect use of the term when defining human sexuality, it is a source that many, today, agree is appropriate. points to Con.

S&G: In that pro remains true to the scientific/biological definition of "gender," and Con does not, point to Pro.

Conduct: Tie.

Intelligence_06

01.17.2021 10:26AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Argument: basically no args. Just a “he said” argument for Con and nothing for Pro. Nothing is achieved.

Sources: Con sourced, Pro didn’t.

S&g: uh...

Conduct: uh...

Jasmine

01.17.2021 01:02AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

This "debate" sucked. I would give con the source point, but it's a Cosmopolitan article. Wagyu literally posted the same article twice when there's so much BETTER sources out there. You could've just used Healthline (which isn't the best, but whatever).

https://www.healthline.com/health/transgender/nonbinary#gender-as-a-spectrum

Barney

01.16.2021 11:40AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

As much as this debate never advances to minimal BoP, pro makes a topical claim (naming two genders), whereas con merely claims if we do outside research we'll come to believe he is correct (never himself naming any third option).

Undefeatable

01.15.2021 01:33PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

While it’s true con didn’t explicitly tell us what his source says, it’s clear that it claimed agender, cisgender, etc.